THE  RAILROAD  QUESTION. 


SPEECH 


HOK  IRA  COLBY, 

REPRESENTATIVE  FROM  CLAREMONT, 


IN  THE 

* V 


House  of  Representatives  in  favor  of  the 
Hazen  Bill, 


SEPTEMBER  21 , 1887. 


Conxnrtr,  ft. 


PRINTED  BY  THE  REPUBLICAN  PRESS  ASSOCIATION, 


1 887. 


ro  -s-a.  -sni 


\ 

v 


l 


r 


«o 


C 

s 

o 


1-7 

C 


a 


e<s>n£^ 


SPEECH. 


i 


\ 

} 


\ 6 

> i- ’ 

o 


£ 

*p 

O 

£ 

CO 


Mr.  Speaker  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Legislature  : 

I have  listened  to  the  gentleman  from  Exeter,  Mr.  Marston, 
with  a great  deal  of  pleasure,  as  I always  do.  In  concluding, 
he  asked  you  to  take  notice  of  the  fact  that  the  eyes  of  the 
people  of  the  state  are  upon  you.  I hope,  gentlemen,  you  will 
remember  that  fact ; that  you  will  listen  carefully  to  what  I have 
to  say  upon  this  matter  ; and  not  only  renpember  that,  but  remem- 
ber what  has  been  said  by  way  of  argument  upon  our  side  of 
this  question  from  the  beginning.  I do  not  wish  to  detract  from 
the 'arguments  that  have  been  made  by  any  gentleman,  but  I do 
say,  that  in  my  judgment  there  has  not  been  a legitimate  argu- 
ment made  in  favor  of  the  Atherton  bill  from  the  beginning  up 
to  this  time,  that  has  a solid  foundation.  I cannot  go  over  all 
that  has  been  said.  If  I could  take  it  up  step  by  step  and  com- 
ment upon  it,  and  your  patience  would  hold  out,  I think  I could 
show  you  that  what  I say  is  true.  But  time  will  not  permit.  I 
cannot  advert  to  a great  portion  of  what  has  been  said.  I 
must  leave  you  to  fill  up  from  the  arguments  of  others  what  I 
shall  leave  out.  I have  had  the  misfortune,  if  it  may  be  called 
such,  at  two  stages  of  this  debate  to  have  my  intended  argument 
largely  made  by  other  gentlemen  who  have  preceded  me  upon 
the  same  side.  Mr.  Branch,  of  Weare,  said  in  a better  way 
than  I could  a considerable  amount  of  what  I intended  to  say 
to  you,  and  so  I am  content.  I am  glad  he  said  it,  and  I hope 
you  will  remember  it.  Mr.  Bell,  who  appeared  before  you  this 
morning,  has  done  the  same  thing : a very  excellent  argument 
in  most  of  its  points,  and,  aside  from  some  expressed  fear  of 
monopoly,  it  was  a perfect  argument  in  favor  of  the  Hazen  bill. 
I thought,  when  the  gentleman  from  Exeter,  Mr.  Bell,  had  fin- 
ished, that  it  would  not  be  worth  while  for  me  to  advert  again 


4 


to  the  legislation  of  1883  ; but  some  remarks  made  by  the  last 
gentleman  upon  the  floor  have  made  me  think  that  perhaps  I 
had  better  begin  where  I left  off  the  other  day,  and  add  a little 
to  the  argument  I then  made  as  to  the  law  of  1883. 

I was  showing  you,  not  for  the  purpose  of  reflecting  on  any  one, 
that  the  gentleman  from  Nashua  had  changed  his  mind,  or  that  he 
occupies  a different  position  now  from  that  which  he  then  did.  I 
was  showing  you  by  extracts,  from  the  Nashua  Telegraph  what 
the  views  of  the  gentleman  from  Nashua,  Mr.  Moore,  were  in 
1883  upon  the  subject  of  the  law  then  enacted.  I understand, 
from  some  utterances  of  his  that  I have  lately  seen,  he  denies 
that  he  has  made  any  change  in  his  views.  As  I understand  it, 
he  puts  it  somewhat  in  this  way  : Admitting  that  the  law  of 
1883  was  a general  law,  he  says  it  was  a general  law  passed 
for  a special  purpose.  That,  in  short,  as  I understand  it,  is 
the  position  of  the  gentleman  from  Nashua.  Mr.  Speaker  and 
gentlemen,  the  law  of  1883,  as  has  been  clearly  shown  by  the 
argument  of  the  gentleman  from  Exeter,  Mr.  Bell,  was  broader 
than  that.  Under  it  the  opportunity  was  given  to  the  Boston, 
Concord  & Montreal  and  the  Northern  railroads  to  unite  with 
the  Concord.  Under  it  was  given  the  opportunity  for  the  Eastern 
and  the  Boston  & Maine  to  unite.  But,  gentlemen,  the  law  of 
1883  was  broader,  and  was  intended  to  be  broader,  than  that. 
It  has  been  said,  if  gentlemen  had  understood  that  it  was  to  ter- 
minate in  a lease  by  the  Boston  & Lowell  of  these  northern 
roads,  it  could  not  have  commanded  twenty  votes  upon  the  floor 
of  that  house.  Mr.  Speaker  and  gentlemen,  if  it  had  been  asked 
of  the  legislature  of  1883  to  pass  any  special  legislation  looking 
to  the  union  of  those  roads  and  leaving  the  matter  just  there, 
it  would  not  have  commanded  twenty  votes  on  the  floor  of  that 
house.  It  was  in  recognition  of  that  broader  view  which  the 
legislature  had, — it  was  in  recognition  of  the  strength  of  the 
principle  of  consolidation, — that  these  railroads,  which  then  had, 
as  I admit,  a special  purpose  underneath  that  bill,  drew  the  gen- 
eral railroad  law  and  presented  it  to  the  legislature  of  1883. 
The  railroads  of  that  time  knew,  and  I think  the  railroads  of 
the  present  time  will  find  out,  that  the  people  of  New  Hampshire 
are  not  in  favor  of  any  such  special  legislation  as  that  proposed 
by  the  Atherton  bill.  The  legislature  of  1883  fully  understood 


5 


and  committed  itself  to  the  idea  of  general  consolidation,  and  if 
the  law  then  proposed  had  not  been  recognized  as  a general  law 
it  could  not  have  been  enacted  : the  current  of  thought  and  feel- 
ing were  in  that  direction.  That  was  the  tendency  of  the  time, 
and  the  railroads  dared  not  present  a bill  not  general  in  its  char- 
acter. They  knew  full  well  that  if  they  put  it  to  that  legisla- 
ture simply  that  these  three  railroads  in  this  part  of  the  state 
should  unite,  and  the  two  in  the  other  part  of  the  state  should 
unite,  their  bill  would  be  defeated.  They  understood  it  as  well 
then  as  they  will  understand  it  now,  and  so  they  made  the  bill 
as  broad  as  they  did.  I refer  you,  gentlemen,  in  addition  to 
references  made  the  other  day,  to  the  utterance  of  Judge  Cross 
in  his  argument  before  the  railroad  committee.  Judge  Cross 
said  the  principle  of  consolidation  has  been  accepted  in  New 
Hampshire,  and  in  illustration  of  what  he  meant  he  named  sev- 
eral instances  where  it  had  taken  place,  and  among  others  he 
named  the  consolidation,  the  ownership  by  the  Boston  & Lowell 
of  the  Manchester  & Keene,  thus  bringing  before  the  committee 
that  he  was  addressing,  and  before  the  members  of  the  legisla- 
ture then  present,  the  fact  that  the  Boston  & Lowell  Railroad  at 
that  very  time  was  the  owner,  as  he  stated  it,  in  whole,  but  as 
the  fact  was,  only  in  part,  of  the  Manchester  & Keene,  and 
was  at  that  time  operating  it  with  the  consent  of  the  Concord, 
which  owned  the  other  half  under  a decree  of  the  supreme  court 
of  the  state,  making  it  unquestionably  a legal  operation  of  that 
road  ; — such  being  the  situation,  they  were  clearly  included  with- 
in the  terms  of  the  act. 

In  addition  to  this,  I desire  to  show  you  an  extract  cut  from 
the  columns  of  the  Daily  Monitor  of  1883,  then  distributed,  as 
it  has  been  during  this  session,  through  the  house  day  by  day, 
enumerating  the  railroads  within  the  state  and  without  the  state 
that  might  be  consolidated  or  leased  by  virtue  of  the  act. 
Twenty-four  railroads  within  the  state  and  some  eight  railroads 
outside  the  state  are  named ; and  among  those  eight  the  Boston 
& Lowell. 

Can  any  man  properly  say,  in  the  light  of  these  facts,  that  the 
legislature  were  not  fully  informed  in  regard  to  the  matter 
of  the  Boston  & Lowell’s  being  included  in  the  terms  of  the  act 
of  1883,  and  that  they  did  not  act  in  the  light  of  that  informa- 


6 


tion  and  did  not  know  what  they  were  doing?  It  has  been  said 
that  the  intent  of  the  law  of  1883  is  to  be  gathered  from  the 
utterances  of  persons  who  participated  in  the  debates  in  the 
house.  The  gentleman  from  Exeter  has  told  you  what  he  said 
in  that  debate,  namely,  that  all  the  railroads  within  the  state 
might  be  consolidated  under  that  bill,  and  he  has  told  you  that 
nobody  denied  it.  Other  gentlemen  referred  to  the  same  matter 
in  the  debates  that  then  transpired.  I sav  this  merely  to  show 
you  that  the  legislature  knew  perfectly  well  what  they  were  do- 
ing. But  this  is  not  the  proper  way  to  determine  the  intent  of 
the  law.  It  would  be  strange,  would  it  not,  gentlemen,  if  one 
of  you  should  come  into  my  office,  and  ask  me  the  meaning  of 
the  law  of  1883,  if  I,  instead  of  going  to  my  shelves  and  taking 
down  the  statutes,  should  say  to  you,  “ I cannot  quite  tell.  I 
have  got  to  write  to  some  gentleman,  perhaps  the  speaker  of  that 
house,  or  some  other  prominent  man,  the  chairman  of  the  railroad 
committee,  to  find  out  what  people  said  at  that  time.”  Would 
not  that  be  a singular  way  to  find  out  the  intent  of  the  law? 
Should  I not  rather  go  to  my  shelf  and  take  down  the  statutes 
of  the  state,  and  open  to  the  text  and  read  the  sections,  and 
undertake  to  tell  you  from  them  the  meaning  of  the  law?  Is 
not  that  the  wav  to  determine  the  meaning  of  the  law  ? What 
force  is  there  in  the  talk  we  have  had  addressed  to  us  on  this 
subject?  The  meaning  of  the  law  is  to  be  gathered  from  the  law 
itself.  My  friend  from  Laconia,  Mr.  Stone,  sa}^s,  “ Gen- 
tlemen of  the  legislature,  if  you  were  a court,  that  would  be  the 
way  to  determine  the  intent  of  the  law  ; but  you  are  not  a 
court.’’  Gentlemen,  the  constitution  of  the  state  points  out 
to  you  in  all  doubtful  matters  the  tribunal  to  which  you  shall 
apply  for  the  meaning  and  interpretation  of  the  laws.  That 
tribunal  is  the  supreme  court.  You  who  have  been  here  before 
know,  and  all  of  you  understand,  that  frequently  the  legis- 
lature of  the  state,  either  the  house  or  the  senate,  have  applied 
to  the  supreme  court  for  their  opinion.  That  is  the  constitu- 
tional tribunal  for  such  purpose,  and  the  method  of  the  court  is 
the  proper  method  of  interpretation  ; that  is,  by  the  examination 
of  the  text  of  the  law  itself.  Turning  to  the  law,  and  reading 
the  18th  section,  who  can  for  a moment  doubt  that  railroads 
outside  the  state  operating  roads  within  the  state  are  included? 


T 


The  gentleman  from  Exeter  says  that  what  was  intended  is 
this,  “all  railroads  legally  operating  roads  within  the  state;” 
and  that  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  act.  Gentlemen,  just  ap- 
ply your  common-sense  to  this  proposition.  If  the  legislature 
intended  to  say  “all  railroads  legally  operating  roads  within  the 
state,”  would  they  not  have  used  that  term?  Most  certainly, 
if  they  meant  to  make  such  a distinction.  But  they  used  the 
plain  words,  “all  roads  operating  roads  within  the  state,”  and 
these  are  the  words  made  use  of  by  the  Daily  Monitor.  In  the 
second  part  of  the  extract  cut  from  the  Monitor  are  the  words, 
“ roads  outside  New  Hampshire,  but  operating  roads  within 
it.”  Such  are  the  words,  and  such  was  understood  to  be  their 
meaning. 

But,  gentlemen,  the  supreme  court  have  had  this  matter  before 
them.  This  matter  of  the  meaning  of  the  law  of  1883  has  been 
before  the  court,  and  it  is  well  understood  that  the  court  found 
the  text  of  the  law  on  the  point  under  consideration  too  plain 
to  make  anything  out  of  it  except  exactly  what  the  reading 
of  it  makes  to  any  understanding.  There  were  four  objections 
to  the  lease  before  the  court  in  the  case,  namely, — “That 
roads  outside  the  state  operating  roads  within  the  state  ” meant 
“legally  operating ;”  that  competing  roads  could  not  lease  each 
other ; and  that  the  Northern  and  Boston,  Concord  & Montreal 
were  competing  roads.  Another  was  the  constitutional  objec- 
tion, which  finally  prevailed  ; and  another  objection  still  was, 
that  the  roads  did  not  physically  connect.  Those  four  objections 
were  made  to  the  court  against  the  lease  of  the  Northern  Rail- 
road to  the  B.  & L.,  and  no  others.  These  matters  were  fully 
discussed  before  the  court ; and  at  a certain  term  of  the  court 
it  came  to  be  understood  that  the  court  found  nothing  in  any 
objection  before  them  except  the  constitutional  objection,  as  it 
was  called  ; that  is,  that  there  was  no  provision  made  in  the  act 
for  dissenting  stockholders.  On  this  question  they  signified  to 
counsel  that  they  desired  further  briefs  ; and  very  voluminous 
briefs  were  made  and  furnished  to  the  court.  The  decision  of 
the  court  followed,  and  showed  but  a single  defect  in  the  law. 
The  court  knew  very  well  that  this  matter  was  coming  before 
this  legislature.  I desire  that  37ou  will  consider  this  point.  Do 
you  suppose  that  the  supreme  court  would  fail  to  make  known 


8 


all  the  defects  they  found  in  the  law,  knowing  that  the  legislat- 
ure were  going  soon  to  convene,  and  that  this  subject  would 
come  under  their  consideration  for  action?  It  had  been  talked 
about ; it  was  well  understood  it  would  come  before  the  legis- 
lature. The  legislature  might  wish  to  amend  the  law,  might 
wish  to  remedy  any  defect  found  in  it.  They  might  wish  to 
modify  it ; there  might  be  a contest  over  it ; — in  such  state  of 
the  case  do  you  suppose  the  supreme  court,  finding  the  law  to 
be  defective  because  the  rights  of  dissenting  stockholders  were 
not  provided  for,  when  they  made  known  this  defect,  would  not 
have  made  known  any  other  defect  they  had  discovered  on  the 
points  raised?  Would  the  supreme  court  be  likely  to  take  such 
a course  as  that  in  a matter  of  grave  importance,  just  before  a 
legislature  is  convened  to  act  upon  the  subject?  It  seems  ab- 
surd. And  here,  gentlemen,  I think  we  may  dismiss  the  point 
as  to  the  intent  of  the  law  of  1883.  I have  spoken  at  greater 
length  in  regard  to  this  matter  than  I should  have  done  had  I 
not  felt  that  legislation  involving  a principle  acknowledged  to 
be  good  and  useful  ought  to  receive  a fair  and  full  trial,  and 
the  effort  be  made  to  amend  and  perfect  it  rather  than  to 
repeal  it. 

I do  not  think  it  wise  for  one  legislature  to  hastily  undo  the 
work  of  another,  and  so  breed  confusion  in  our  laws  and  in  the 
conduct  of  business.  Such  action  should  be  taken  only  in 
obedience  to  very  powerful  reasons.  It  is  also  of  some  conse- 
quence as  bearing  upon  the  question  of  what  is  fair  and  equal 
justice  towards  the  Boston  & Lowell  Railroad.  If  the  gentle- 
man from  Manchester  had  listened  carefully  to  what  I said,  he 
would  not  have  spent  an  hour  and  a half  in  trying  to  combat  a 
proposition  which  he  imagined  I had  put  forth,  but  which  in  fact 
I had  not.  I said,  I freely  admit  that  it  was  the  design  of  these 
roads  under  that  general  railroad  law  to  unite,  and  the  railroad 
law  was  to  give  them  their  opportunity  ; but  if  they  did  not  take 
that  opportunity,  no  man  in  that  legislature,  no  man  who  had 
anything  to  do  with  the  passage  of  that  law,  ever  dreamed  for  a 
single  moment  that  others  were  debarred  from  taking  their  oppor- 
tunity. That  is  what  I said  ; and  he  went  on  for  an  hour  and  a 
half  quoting  arguments  and  statements,  and  making  statements 
of  his  own  in  regard  to  somebody  or  other  who  had  said  some- 


9 


thing  about  a union  of  these  roads.  I did  not  deny  all  that.  I 
admit  all  that ; but  I said  the  legislation  of  that  time  was  broader, 
and  meant  something  more  than  that. 

Well,  gentlemen,  the  legislation  stood  in  that  way.  The  Con- 
cord Railroad  had  their  opportunity,  as  the  Eastern  and  the  Bos- 
ton & Maine  railroads  had  their  opportunity  ; and  the  Concord 
Railroad,  for  a reason  which  is  attempted  to  be  glossed  over  and 
apologized  for,  failed  to  take  their  opportunity.  They  failed  in 
making  a business  connection  with  the  Boston,  Concord  & Mon- 
treal and  the  Northern  roads ; and  various  excuses  have  been  made 
for  their  failure.  If  they  had  had  a common  interest,  if  there 
had  been  harmony  of  feeling,  the  legal  technicality  in  the  way 
would  have  amounted  to  little.  Everybody  knows,  as  my  friend 
from  Exeter  has  said,  that  a man  will  not  quarrel  with  himself 
or  his  own  interest.  If  they  were  united,  if  their  ideas  came  to- 
gether, even  if  they  could  not  get  a union  exactly  legal,  they 
could  get  one  that  was  sufficient  in  all  respects  for  their  action 
and  the  conduct  of  their  business.  The  truth  is,  the  Concord  Rail- 
road were  hard  and  exacting  in  their  terms,  and  the  Northern 
and  the  Boston,  Concord  & Montreal  would  not  comply,  and  so 
the  union  failed.  The  Concord  road  lost  their  opportunity  on 
account  of  their  greed,  on  account  of  their  own  hard-handedness 
in  the  matter.  They  afterwards  had  another  opportunity,  and 
they  lost  that  in  the  same  way,  and  by  their  own  fault.  The 
Boston  & Lowell  Railroad,  with  this  matter  open  as  it  was  under 
the  law, — and  a state  of  things  existing  such  as  I have  stated, — 
came  here,  as  my  friend  from  Weare,  Mr.  Branch,  has  said,  at  the 
invitation  of  the  Northern  and  the  Boston,  Concord  & Montreal. 
They  had  a perfect  right  to  come.  Is  there  a man  within  the 
hearing  of  my  voice  who  will  say  that  under  those  circumstances 
it  was  not  fair  and  above  board,  and  that  the  Boston  & Lowell 
road  were  not  justified,  so  long  as  the  other  roads  quarrelled 
and  would  not  unite,  and  they  were  invited  to  come  into  this 
contract,  that  they  should  do  it?  I think  the  good  faith  of  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire  is,  just  here,  involved  in  the  transac- 
tion. If  the  Concord  Railroad  had  stood  just  where  the  Boston 
& Lowell  Railroad  stands  in  regard  to  this  matter,  and  had 
come  before  this  legislature,  would  you  not  have  said,  14  The 
legal  defect  shall  not  prevail  in  this  matter.  They  wish  to 


10 


unite ; they  have  made  their  contracts  ; they  made  satisfactory 
arrangements.  They  wish  to  come  together.  Shall  we  not 
allow  it : shall  we  not  unite  them  ? Shall  we  not  remedy  the 
defects  in  the  law,  and  let  this  Concord  and  these  northern  roads 
come  together?”  Is  there  a man  here  who  would  not  have  said, 
“That  is  right ; that  is  justice  ; that  is  what  ought  to  be  done”? 
Why,  then,  should  we  not  deal  out  to  the  Boston  & Lowell  road 
the  same  treatment  we  would  have  dealt  out  to  the  Concord 
road  under  like  circumstances?  But  it  is  objected, — they  are  a 
“ foreign  corporation.”  I will  come  to  that  by  and  by. 

Is  there  any  reason  why  you  should  not  confirm  the  leases  of 
those  two  roads,  allow  the  law  to  be  perfected,  and  the  whole 
matter  to  stand  where  the  people  on  those  two  roads  desire  it  to 
stand?  The  Boston  & Lowell  have  come  in  here  in  good  faith, 
have  put  their  money  and  material  in,  have  done  good  service 
for  the  state  and  its  people,  have  managed  the  roads  up  and 
down  these  lines  so  that  even  the  opponents  of  this  measure  all 
say  it  was  good  service.  It  satisfied  the  people.  They  could  not 
make  the  least  objection  against  it.  We  ought  to  concede  it  to 
the  wishes  of  the  people,  as  well  as  in  justice  to  the  roads.  I 
can  see  no  possible  reason,  on  grounds  of  common  justice,  for 
denying  the  confirmation  of  the  leases.  But,  gentlemen,  it  is 
objected  that  the  lease  is  too  long  ; that  it  is  a 99-year  lease  ; — 
and  it  has  been  iterated  and  reiterated  here  that  this  lease  ex- 
tends beyond  the  time  of  your  children  and  your  children’s 
children  for  two  or  three  generations  to  come,  and  that  on  that 
account  it  is  a very  dangerous  thing  to  enter  into ; that  it  is 
dangerous  for  the  state  and  for  its  people  to  pass  over  the  pos- 
session of  these  roads  for  so  long  a term.  This  is  and  has  been 
the  stock  in  trade  of  my  friend  from  Nashua.  That  is  the  talk 
made  to  you  by  the  gentleman  from  Exeter,  Mr.  Marston,  whose 
opinion  on  questions  of  law  I am  ready  to  endorse.  I admit  the 
law  that  has  been  given  to  you,  both  by  the  gentleman  from  Man- 
chester and  the  gentleman  from  Exeter,  Mr.  Marston  ; but,  gen- 
tlemen, it  has  no  application  in  this  case.  That  is  the  difficulty 
about  it.  It  is  always  a good  plan,  when  you  undertake  to  talk 
about  a thing,  to  see  what  you  are  talking  about,  see  what  your 
point  of  departure  is.  I think  I can  show  you,  gentlemen,  so 
that  every  man  in  this  house  will  understand  me,  that  their  theory 


11 


about  this  matter  is  entirely  wrong.  I hold  in  my  hand  a copy 
of  the  lease  of  the  Northern  road,  of  their  railroad  property, 
etc.,  to  the  Boston  & Lowell  Railroad.  What  is  the  char- 
acter of  this  instrument?  Gentlemen,  it  is  a lease  : it  is  not  a 
sale.  The  court  have  said  that  for  certain  purposes  it  is  a sale 
of  the  roads  ; that  is,  it  is  so  far  a change  in  the  condition  of 
the  property  of  the  roads  that  any  dissenting  stockholder  may 
take  the  value  of  his  property  and  go  his  way  with  it.  But 
nevertheless,  gentlemen,  it  is  not  a sale  : it  is  a lease  ; — and  I 
wish  you  to  put  your  minds  upon  the  points  in  regard  to  the 
lease  as  if  it  were  a lease  of  your  farm,  or  a lease  of  your 
buildings,  or  a lease  of  your  store,  and  you  will  see  at  once  the 
difference  between  that  kind  of  an  instrument  and  an  entire 
sale  of  your  property. 

I find  that  there  are  numerous  covenants  in  this  lease.  I find, 
among  other  covenants,  that  the  fourteenth  is  as  follows : 
“And  the  party  of  the  second  part  also  covenants  and  agrees 
that  in  case  of  the  breach  of  any  of  its  covenants  herein  con- 
tained, or  in  ease  the  estate  hereby  created  and  vested  in  it  shall 
be  taken  from  it  by  legal  proceedings  of  any  kind,  or  in  case  of 
default  in  payment  herein  provided  to  be  made  by  the  party  of 
the  second  part  or  any  part  thereof,  for  a period  of  thirty  days 
after  the  same  is  payable,  then  the  party  of  the  first  part,  its 
successors  and  assigns,  may  enter  upon  and  take  full  possession 
of  the  premises  herein  demised,  and  all  depots,  shops,  buildings, 
tracks,  rolling-stock,  or  other  property  added  thereto,  and  re- 
move said,  lessee  and  all  persons  claiming  under  it  from  said 
premises,  and  thereby  determine  the  estate  hereby  granted,  using 
whatever  force  may  be  necessary  for  that  purpose.” 

Now,  what  is  the  state  of  this  case?  The  gentleman  from 
Nashua  has  told  you  that  railroads  are  public  corporations.  He 
has  told  you  that  persons  operating  them  are  public  trustees.  I 
admit  it ; and,  gentlemen,  a good  deal  of  talk — to  stop  in  what 
I was  saying  about  this  lease — a good  deal  of  talk  has  been 
made  about  vested  rights.  A great  flourish  was  made  bv 
the  gentleman  from  Manchester,  Mr.  Sulloway,  who  came  here 
last  night  and  talked  long  and  loud  on  the  subject  of  vested 
rights,  and  gave,  as  he  said,  a pile  of  authorities  that  would 
deluge  anybody  that  should  deny  that  doctrine.  There  is  no 


12 


doubt  about  that  law,  or  what  the  gentleman  from  Exeter  stated 
here  in  regard  to  the  subject  of  vested  rights  ; but  the  trouble 
about  it  is,  there  is  not  anything  vested  except  the  right  to  exe- 
cute a public  trust  so  long  as  it  is  executed  properly.  That  is 
their  difficulty.  That  is  just  where  this  whole  thing  hinges.  Look 
at  it  for  a moment.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  an  administrator  who 
had  a vested  right  in  the  estate  he  was  administering  upon,  so 
that  he,  in  defiance  of  his  duties  and  obligations  under  the  law, 
could  go  on  and  do  anything  he  pleased  and  not  find  himself 
subject  to  removal?  Did  you  ever  hear  of  a trustee  who  held 
any  property  in  his  hands,  who  had  any  other  vested  lights  than 
the  right  to  conduct  that  property  and  control  it  and  do  with  it 
according  to  the  conditions  of  his  trust? 

Well,  now,  these  railroad  companies  are  trustees.  They  are 
discharging  a public  trust.  They  get  their  authority  from  the 
state  to  run  their  railroads.  They  are  common  carriers  engaged 
in  an  undertaking  almost  purely  public  in  its  nature,  and  all 
their  acts  must  be  in  accord  with  their  obligations  as  public 
trustees.  They  are  to  do  whatever  common  carriers  ought  to 
do  under  that  trust.  They  have  no  vested  right  to  do  anything 
else.  And  the  moment  they  cease  to  perform  their  public  obli- 
gations, they  have  forfeited  their  right  to  remain  in  the  public 
service.  Just  as  an  administrator  may  be  turned  out,  just  as  a 
trustee  who  disregards  his  duty  to  the  estate  may  be  turned  out, 
just  so  anybody  who  holds  a railroad  and  undertakes  to  run  it  in 
defiance  of  the  law  of  the  state  can  be  turned  out ; and  the  law, 
as  explained  by  the  gentlemen  referred  to,  has  no  application  to 
the  case.  I admit  if  under  an  act  of  incorporation  two  parties 
make  a contract  one  with  the  other,  that  a repeal  of  the  act  of 
incorporation  will  not  disturb  the  contract ; but  I claim  that  when 
the  state  charters  a railroad,  and  allows  that  railroad  to  lease 
itself,  holding  both  to  the  performance  of  all  the  obligations  of 
the  company  originally  chartered,  it  is  simply  saying  to  those 
parties,  “You  can  take  this  property,  and  so  long  as  you  per- 
form your  public  duties,  your  duties  to  the  state  and  to  the 
stockholders,  and  to  every  citizen  that  wants  to  come  and  go  on 
your  road,  so  far  as  you  observe  every  rule  and  obligation  that 
is  incumbent  on  you,  so  long  you  may  hold  and  operate  your 
road  ; but  a disregard  of  your  duties  will  place  you  at  the  mercy 
of  the  state  and  your  lessor.” 


13 


I call  attention  to  the  conditions  of  the  lease  in  the  tenth 
article.  The  tenth  article  is  as  follows  : “ It  will,  during  the 

term  of  this  lease,  operate  said  demised  railroad  according  to 
the  requirements  of  law,  fulfilling  all  the  duties  and  obligations 
of  the  party  of  the  first  part  in  relation  thereto  in  the  same  man- 
ner as  if  the  said  demised  roads  remained  in  the  possession  and 
control  of  the  party  of  the  first  part,  and  protect  and  save  harm- 
less the  party  of  the  first  part  against  all  actions  or  claims  for 
injuries  to  persons  or  property  during  said  term  by  reason  of 
any  want  of  repair  of  said  road  and  property  or  appurtenances, 
or  any  casualty  of  any  kind,  or  any  want  of  care  and  skill  in 
the  management  of  the  same,  or  by  reason  of  any  defect  therein, 
and  will  comply  in  all  respects  with  the  requirements  of  law  in 
the  same  manner  as  if  it  were  the  proprietor  of  said  railroad 
and  property,  and  will  not  permit  the  party  of  the  first  part  to 
be  subjected  to  any  payment,  penalty,  or  forfeiture  for  viola- 
tion of  law  in  any  respect,  and  that  at  the  expiration  of  or  ear- 
lier termination  of  this  lease  it  will  return  said  demised  road 
and  property,  with  all  equipments  thereof,  to  the  party  of  the 
first  part,  in  as  good  order  and  condition  as  the  same  now  are, 
without  diminution  or  depreciation  in  any  respect.” 

Now,  gentlemen,  this  lease  is  perfectly  iron-clad.  Do  you 
wish  to  shorten  it  and  make  it  ten  years,  fifteen  years,  or  thirty 
years?  If  you  know  that  for  ninety-nine  years  every  obligation 
that  is  incumbent  on  this  chartered  road  will  be  observed,  do 
you  wish  to  cut  the  term  down?  What  advantage  is  there  in  it? 
Do  you  desire  frequent  contests  in  your  legislatures,  such  as  we 
have  had  here  during  the  present  session  ? What  more  is  wanted 
than  that  every  obligation  of  this  railroad,  as  it  was  originally 
chartered,  shall  be  fully  taken  care  of  and  performed  for  the 
whole  ninety-nine  years,  and  that  the  rental  shall  be  paid  and 
other  duties  performed  according  to  the  terms  of  this  lease? 
Why,  if  we  could  insure  for  ninety-nine  years  as  perfect  a con- 
dition of  things  in  the  railroads  of  New  Hampshire  as  is  con- 
templated in  this  lease  ; if  we  could  know  and  insure  that  the 
Boston  & Maine  Railroad  and  the  Concord  Railroad  would  take 
care  of  every  public  obligation  that  rests  upon  them  and  per- 
form every  obligation  to  the  stockholders  as  well  as  therein 
stated  and  provided  for,  I should  feel  that  we  had  accomplished 


14 


something  in  this  legislature  worthy  of  its  long  session.  If 
that  condition  of  things  exists,  is  there  any  objection  to  its  con- 
tinuance for  ninety-nine  years?  You  see,  gentlemen,  if  this 
state  of  things  is  not  preserved,  if  the  covenants  are  not  per- 
formed, within  thirty  days  from  the  time  of  their  breach  the 
original  company,  the  lessor,  can  step  in,  take  this  railroad  away 
from  the  parties  that  are  operating  it,  and  give  it  to  others  who 
will  serve  the  public  and  the  stockholders  properly.  Is  not  that 
the  plainest  thing  in  the  world?  Do  you  not  know,  gentlemen, 
if  you  let  your  farm  or  your  house  to  some  one,  and  he  violates 
the  conditions  of  the  lease,  that  you  have  your  right  to  enter  at 
once  ? Does  not  every  man  in  this  house  know  that  you  can 
take  your  property  at  once  back  into  your  hands,  and  do  what 
you  please  with  it?  You  can  put  the  lessee  out  on  short  notice 
if  he  does  not  keep  the  written  obligations  he  has  made  with 
you.  There  are  no  vested  rights  that  can  prevent  this.  Such 
is  the  contract  the  Boston  & Lowell  has  or  wishes  to  have  with 
the  Northern, — and  I suppose  a similar  lease  was  made  with  the 
Boston,  Concord  & Montreal.  If  they  do  not  observe  the  con- 
ditions, the}7  forfeit  their  rights.  If  the  lessor,  in  case  of  a fail- 
ure of  the  lessees  to  perform  their  duties,  whether  public  or 
private,  has  a right  to  enter  for  forfeiture  of  the  lease,  it  would 
certainly  be  reasonable  to  suppose  the  authority  of  the  state 
would  be  ample  in  the  matter  of  a public  trust  to  enforce  per- 
formance of  the  duties,  or  to  depose  the  trustee,  as  the  public 
good  might  require. 

There  are  reasons  why  a long  lease  is  a good  thing.  I 
will  enumerate  some  of  them.  If  there  are  repairs  to  be  made 
upon  the  road,  if  there  is  a double  track  to  be  laid,  if  there  are 
any  permanent  improvements  to  be  made,  the  party  making 
them  wants  to  know  that  he  will  be  able  to  hold  the  property 
and  enjoy  the  rights  and  privileges  for  a considerable  length  of 
time.  He  wants  to  know,  if  he  puts  a hundred  thousand  dol- 
lars into  your  Boston,  Concord  & Montreal  road  or  into  your 
Northern  road,  or  five  hundred  thousand  or  a million  dollars,  or 
whatever  sum  it  may  be, — he  wants  to  know  that  he  will  not  be 
speedily  deprived  of  its  benefits  ; that  he  will  have  the  privilege, 
if  he  performs  his  duty,  of  a long  continued  enjoyment  of  the 
outlay.  If  you  insist  upon  a ten  years  lease  or  a fifteen  years 


15 


lease,  or  even  a thirty  years  lease,  you  order  a condition  of 
things  in  the  state  that  will  prove  ruinous  to  the  railroads.  It 
seems  certain  to  me.  No  one  will  be  as  likely  to  double  track 
the  Northern  road  under  such  a state  of  things  ; no  one  to  build 
new  depots,  and  do  all  the  other  needed  things, — put  in  all  the 
appliances,  and  maintain  all  the  service  that  you  want.  If  your 
rights  are  well  protected,  as  I think  I have  shown  you  they  are, 
why  not  allow  these  leases  to  be  perfected?  There  is  a remark- 
able inconsistency  displayed.  It  is  claimed  there  is  danger  in  a 
lease  of  the  Boston,  Concord  & Montreal  Railroad  for  ninty-nine 
years,  but  at  the  same  time  they  propose  the  union  of  that  road 
with  the  Concord  for  all  coming  time. 

There  has  been  introduced  from  Cheshire  county  a bill  which 
passed  this  house,  providing  for  the  leasing  and  consolidation  of 
certain  railroads.  It  involves  every  principle  involved  in  this 
lease,  and  not  a breath  has  been  raised  against  it.  Is  my 
friend  from  Nashua  so  anxious  to  get  a few  votes  from  Ches- 
hire county,  and  are  my  friends  from  Cheshire  county  so 
anxious  to  sell  themselves  out  for  a consideration,  that  they 
will  allow  such  a bill  to  pass?  Though  they  believe  to  the 
contrary,  though  they  are  opposed  to  a ninety-nine  years  lease, — 
my  friend  from  Nashua  shakes  his  head, — but  when  that  matter 
was  brought  up  here  not  a breath  was  raised  against  it.  When 
one  poses  before  this  legislature  as  though  he  were  a Glad- 
stone, and  talks  about  home  rule  he  should  at  least  make  an 
effort  to  be  consistent.  Ninety-nine  years  means  the  same 
thing  here  as  in  Cheshire  county.  Consolidation  and  union  with 
and  leasing  to  foreign  corporations  is  the  same  there  as  here.  If 
our  friends  are  governed  by  a principle,  will  they  tell  us  what  it 
is,  and  whether  it  sometimes  slumbers?  We  should  not  be  influ- 
enced by  the  action  of  any  road  towards  any  particular  section 
of  the  state,  whether  it  be  the  town  of  Wliitefield  or  any  other 
place.  We  are  here  to  “ bear  faith  and  true  allegiance  to  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire,”  not  to  the  town  of  Whitefield,  or  to 
any  town  where  you  are  going  to  have  a little  piece  of  railroad, 
and  somebody  flourishes  a bond  in  your  face  as  a ground  for 
your  action,  and  you  come  here  and  say,  “ I have  not  changed 
my  general  principles,  but  because  my  town  is  to  be  benefited  a 
little  I will  sell  the  rest  of  }7ou  out.”  [Applause.] 


16 


Will  the  men  of  Cheshire  county,  who  have  secured  the  pas- 
sage of  their  bill  by  the  aid  of  its  friends  and  the  forbearance 
of  the  friends  of  the  Atherton  bill,  now  by  their  votes  deny  to 
the  other  parts  of  the  state  such  legislation  as  they  themselves 
crave  ? 

Now,  a few  words  specially  as  to  the  provisions  of  these  two 
bills.  The  Hazen  bill,  so-called,  provides,  in  its  first  part,  a 
remedy  for  the  defect  of  the  law  of  1883.  This  is  the  first  and 
main  provision  of  the  Hazen  bill.  The  seventh  section  provides 
that  the  law  of  1883  and  this  law  shall  be  construed  as  author- 
izing the  lease  of  these  two  upper  roads  to  the  Boston  & 
Lowell.  The  gentleman  from  Exeter,  Mr.  Bell,  has  declared 
exactly  my  opinion  on  this  matter,  and  that  is,  that  it  is  simplv 
declaratory.  We  are  criticised  by  our  friends  of  the  Atherton 
bill  for  putting  that  into  the  bill.  Turn  to  their  own  bill,  gen- 
tlemen. They  have  done  precisely  the  same  thing : they  have 
done  what  they  criticise  us  for  doing.  They  have  said,  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  sixteenth  section  of  the  Atherton  bill,  “and 
said  act  of  1883  is  hereby  declared  as  authorizing  only  the 
leasing  or  the  union  of  roads  which  physically  connect. ” 
And  they  have  put  it  in  for  a purpose.  They  have  provided  * 
that  these  upper  roads  shall  not  lease  themselves  to  any  road 
except  the  Concord.  That  is  the  meaning  of  this  provision.  If 
their  bill  becomes  a law,  the  Boston,  Concord  & Montreal  and  the 
Northern  roads  cannot  lease  themselves  to  any  road  except 
the  Concord,  for  that  is  the  only  road  that  physically  connects 
with  them.  It  is  simply  putting  the  matter  between  two  parties 
who  will  attempt  to  make  a contract  here  in  regard  to  the  rail- 
road interests,  so  that  one  party  will  be  at  the  mercy  of  the 
other.  What  is  your  opinion  of  such  a provision?  If  the  legis- 
lature should  provide  that  you  could  not  sell  your  farm  to  any- 
body except  your  neighbor  B,  you  would  see  the  point ; you 
would  understand  that  kind  of  legislation  ; you  would  have 
your  opinion  as  to  its  propriety.  Some  gentlemen  have  gone  so 
far  as  to  say  if  these  parties  do  not  wish  to  unite  their  roads, 
they  will  compel  them  to  unite.  Is  there  any  such  state  of 
things  existing  as  requires  that  ? What  is  the  public  good  which 
requires  that  we  should  so  treat  the  corporate  property  of  these 
stockholders  ? Much  has  been  said  about  the  small  stockholders 


17 


of  the  Boston,  Concord  & Montreal, — and  it  has  been  tried 
to  awaken  our  sympathy  for  them.  I should  like  to  know  what 
treatment  they  would  receive  at  the  hands  of  the  Concord  Rail- 
road if  you  should  enact  such  legislation  as  that  road  pro- 
poses. You  have  only  to  look  at  their  former  conduct  to  de- 
termine. Did  they  exact  hard  terms  of  the  Northern  and  the 
Boston,  Concord  & Montreal  roads?  Did  they  undertake  to 
crowd  and  grind  them  ? Did  they  undertake  to  exact  from  them 
conditions  different  from  those  which  they  had  before  agreed 
to?  And  was  it  a grasping  and  grinding  monopoly,  or  not? 

Such  is  the  spirit  of  this  corporation  ; and  if  you  leave  mat- 
ters in  a condition  for  them  to  exercise  that  spirit,  you  will  find 
it  as  relentless  as  ever. 

I am  in  favor  of  the  seventh  section  because  I believe  it  will 
have  a tendency  to  prevent  litigation.  The  eighth  section  con- 
tains provisions  as  to  connections  of  railroads,  places  the  mat- 
ter under  the  regulation  of  the  commissioners,  and  provides  for 
an  appeal  to  the  supreme  court.  The  gentleman  from  Exeter, 
Mr.  Bell,  familiar  with  the  circumstances,  as  I am  not,  has 
delineated  to  you  the  condition  of  things  at  Manchester,  and 
clearly  shown  the  necessity  for  the  provisions,  not  for  the  ad- 
vantage of  one  road  alone,  but  for  the  advantage  of  all. 

Section  eleven  reads  as  follows  : “Railroad  corporations  cre- 
ated by  the  laws  of  other  states  shall  have  all  the  rights  and 
privileges  as  regards  connecting  roads,  under  the  preceding  sec- 
tions, as  corporations  created  bv  the  state.”  It  supplements  the 
three  preceding  sections,  and  makes  their  provisions  general. 

The  twelfth  section  of  this  act  provides  for  a general  en- 
forcement of  the  orders  and  decrees  of  the  railroad  commis- 
sioners. It  strengthens  the  commissioner  law,  and  gives  greater 
power  in  its  execution.  It  certainly  is  not  in  favor  of  any  mo- 
nopoly. All  these  provisions  are  concessions  to  the  people.  I 
am  not  in  favor  myself  of  any  special  act  of  legislation  regard- 
ing freights  and  fares, — that  is,  except  some  general  provision 
such  as  is  put  in  this  bill,  that  they  shall  not  be  increased  over 
what  they  are  at  a certain  date.  You  never  can  tell,  when  you 
make  a special  law,  such  as  Mr.  Todd’s  two-cent  bill,  how  it  is 
going  to  operate.  The  matter  of  freights  and  fares  should  be 
left  in  the  control  of  the  railroad  commissioners.  Mv  friend 
2 


18 


from  Nashua,  up  to  1886,  was  the  chairman  of  that  board  from 
its  inauguration,  and  I take  it  if  any  such  provision  as  that 
embodied  in  the  Todd  bill  had  been  needed,  if  any  such  thing  as 
that  ought  to  have  been  done,  it  would  have  been  ordered  by 
the  commissioners. 

We  cannot  consider  the  subject  in  all  its  minutiae,  in  all  its 
bearings,  and  we  are  just  as  likely  to  get  something  that  will 
work  against  the  public  as  to  get  something  that  will  work  in 
their  favor. 

Such  are  the  provisions  of  the  Hazen  bill.  There  is  a pro- 
vision restricting  fares  and  freights  to  what  they  were  August 
1,  1887.  That  is  general ; that  applies  everywhere,  over  all  the 
systems.  Then,  gentlemen,  is  this  provision,  that  this  act  shall 
always  be  under  the  control  of  the  legislature  to  alter,  amend,  or 
repeal,  as  the  public  good  may  require.  My  friend  from  Weare 
gave  you  authorities  on  that  subject,  illustrating  and  enforcing 
his  view  of  the  law.  He  has  discussed  the  matter  so  fully  and 
thoroughly  that  it  is  entirely  unnecessary  for  me  to  enter  upon 
that  field. 

Let  us  turn  to  the  Atherton  bill.  That  provides  in  the  first 
place  for  this  marriage,  this  union  forever,  of  the  Boston,  Con- 
cord & Montreal  road  with  the  Concord  road.  Is  there  a man 
in  this  house  that  does  not  believe  there  is  at  the  present  time 
in  the  hands  of  the  Concord  road  a large  surplus  that  belongs 
to  the  state?  Who  has  denied  it?  Who  from  the  Concord  Rail- 
road has  come  here  and  undertaken  to  deny  that  proposition,  ex- 
cept in  the  most  general  manner?  They  have  referred  you  to  the 
figuring  of  Mr.  Barnard  in  1883  on  that  subject.  I have  here 
the  act  of  incorporation  of  the  Concord  Railroad.  That  whole 
figuring  treats  the  question  just  as  though  the  stockholders  of 
the  Concord  Railroad  are  to  receive  ten  per  cent,  dividend,  or 
it  is  to  be  made  up  by  the  state  whenever  they  take  the  road. 
The  provisions  of  that  law  do  not  say  any  such  thing.  That 
figuring  is  made  up  in  this  way : it  takes  what  the  stockholders 
of  the  Concord  Railroad  have  received  year  by  year,  adds 
enough  to  that  to  make  ten  per  cent.,  and  figures  interest  there- 
on. I do  not  think  they  are  entitled  to  interest.  I do  not  think 
the  Concord  road  can  hold  the  property  of  their  stockholders 
in  their  possession,  and  charge  the  state  interest  thereon. 


19 


Now  this  section  of  the  act  incorporating  the  Concord  Rail- 
road says,  “ That  the  state  at  any  time  during  the  charter  of 
the  Concord  Railroad  Corporation,  at  the  expiration  of  twenty 
years  from  the  time  of  the  completion  of  said  road,  may  pur- 
chase the  same  of  said  corporation,  and  all  the  franchise, 
rights,  and  privileges  of  said  corporation,  by  paying  them  there- 
for the  amount  expended  in  making  said  road  ; and  in  case, 
at  the  time  of  said  purchase,  they  saicl  corporation  shall  not  have 
received  a net  income  equal  to  twelve  per  cent,  per  annum  on 
the  amount  of  such  expenditure  from  the  time  of  the  payment 
thereof  by  the  stockholders,  by  paying  said  corporation  such 
additional  sum  as  together  with  the  tolls  and  profits  of  every 
kind  which  they  shall  have  received  from  said  railroad,  will  be 
equal  to  a net  profit  of  ten  per  cent.” 

If  the  corporation  have  received  twelve  per  cent,  annually  dur- 
ing that  time,  no  matter  what  they  have  done  with  it,  no  matter 
if  the  stockholders  have  not  got  it, — if  the  corporation  have  re- 
ceived it,  then  the  state  could  take  the  road  by  paying  therefor 
the  amount  expended  in  making  said  road.  Is  there  a man  with- 
in the  sound  of  mv  voice  who  believes  that  this  corporation  has 
not  had  a net  income  of  twelve  per  cent,  per  annum  on  an  aver- 
age from  the  time  they  were  incorporated  up  to  the  present  time? 

The  question  is,  Have  the  corporation  earned  year  by  year  on 
an  average  twelve  per  cent,  net? — and  if  they  have  that  is  an  end 
of  the  matter.  You  have  heard  of  the  offer  of  $500,000  already 
made.  [Applause.]  It  is  time  the  question  was  acted  upon  and 
dropped  out  of  the  halls  of  legislation.  One  of  our  opponents 
says  this  surplus  amounts  to  $2,000,000.  This  would  go  a good 
ways  towards  paying  the  state  debt.  Gentlemen,  here  is  some- 
thing for  you  to  consider.  Are  you  going  to  pass  any  act  or 
do  any  legislation  that  will  by  any  possible  interpretation  be 
considered  by  the  citizens  of  your  various  towns  as  voting  away 
to  any  party  $2,000,000  that  belongs  to  the  state? 

But  I started  to  say  that  the  provisions  of  this  Atherton  bill 
were  made  for  the  purpose  of  diverting  this  surplus  and  taking 
it  out  of  the  reach  of  recovery,  and  I will  tell  you  how  it  is 
going  to  be  done.  I did  not  understand  it  fully  until  my  friend 
from  Laconia  made  his  speech,  and  said  “ this  plum  of  the 
Concord  Railroad  is  what  we  are  after.”  That  has  been  talked 


20 


about  and  put  down  by  this  house  as  a dead  give-away  upon 
this  whole  subject.  They  are  after  that.  Who  is  after  it?  It 
is  a syndicate  that  is  after  it,  gentlemen.  Of  course  no  syndi- 
cate can  ever  have  anything  for  itself  without  conferring  some 
benefit  on  somebod}^  else.  I suppose  there  are  small  stockhold- 
ers that  may,  when  the  syndicate  are  getting  this  bonanza,  real- 
ize some  benefit  from  it,  but  that  is  merely  a matter  by  the 
way,  and  when  my  friend  came  in  here  and  talked  about 
marrying  these  roads,  I understood  full  well  what  he  meant. 
It  was  that  the  stock  of  the  Boston,  Concord  & Montreal 
should  be  fused  with  the  stock  of  the  Concord  Railroad,  so 
that  these  poor  shares  of  the  B.  C.  & M.  may  be  permeated 
with  this  surplus  fund,  which,  like  blood,  will  run  through  them. 
That  is  the  effect,  gentlemen.  The  market  value  will  be  raised. 
My  friends  of  the  Concord  Railroad  are  not  anxious  to  fuse 
themselves  with  this  Northern  Railroad.  They  prefer  to  be  left 
alone  just  as  they  are.  They  would  prefer  to  enjoy  the  surplus 
just  as  they  have  done  ; but  if  they  cannot  do  that,  then,  as  the 
next  best  thing,  they  wish  to  fuse  these  two  railroads,  and  then 
you  will  wake  up  some  fine  morning  and  find  that  some  other 
railroad  has  got  those  shares.  That  is  what  is  going  to  hap- 
pen. That  is  what  they  design  to  do  ; they  mean  to  realize  this 
surplus  and  put  it  into  their  pockets.  That  is  the  whole  scheme. 
You  may  put  any  provision  that  you  please  into  the  bill,  that 
the  state  may  hereafter  call  upon  the  Concord  Railroad  for  its 
surplus,  but  it  will  be  of  no  avail.  It  will  have  gone  beyond 
your  reach. 

Again  : It  is  said  we  are  by  this  bill  surrendering  to  foreign 
corporations  the  control  of  our  railroads.  There  never  was  a 
greater  absurdity.  There  cannot  be  found  one  single  case,  one 
single  opinion,  one  single  line  of  law  in  any  opinion,  in  any  de- 
cision of  court,  in  any  book  of  law,  to  substantiate  such  a posi- 
tion as  that.  Look  at  it  a moment.  What  power,  I ask  you, 
has  this  legislature,  or  any  other  legislature,  to  take  from  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire  its  authority  as  a state  and  turn  it 
over  to  Massachusetts  or  any  foreign  corporation  ? Do  you  be- 
lieve if  you  should  attempt  to  do  such  a thing  it  would  be 
worth  the  paper  it  should  be  written  on  ? You  need  not  trouble 
yourselves  about  this  bill,  if  that  is  all  there  is  to  it.  You  need 


21 


not  be  concerned  about  its  holding  ninety-nine  years,  if  it  un- 
dertakes to  surrender  the  authority  of  the  state  to  outside  par- 
ties. And  you  cannot  get  that  question  to  the  supreme  court 
of  the  United  States.  You  know  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States  is  a document  of  powers  delegated  by  the  states  to  the 
United  States.  Now  there  is  no  provision  in  that  constitution 
that  allows  any  question  between  the  state  of  New  Hampshire 
and  any  citizen  of  another  state  to  go  to  the  supreme  court. 
State  sovereignty,  state  authority  within  its  jurisdiction,  is  as 
absolute  as  any  power  on  earth  can  be. 

[At  this  point  the  house  adjourned  to  7:30  p.  m.,  when  Mr. 
Colby  concluded  his  speech.]  . 

Mr.  Speaker  : I desire  to  mention  one  or  two  matters  that  in 
running  hastily  over,  and  without  anything  except  mere  points 
noted,  I have  omitted.  If  you  should  pass  the  Atherton  bill, 
of  course  that  would  determine  that  the  public  good  required 
the  taking  of  the  lease  of  the  Boston,  Concord  & Montreal 
road  and  passing  it  over  to  the  Concord  road  under  the 
idea  of  eminent  domain,  or  the  right  to  take  property  when 
the  interests  of  the  state  demand  it.  It  has  been  alluded  to 
here  by  the  gentleman  from  Exeter,  Mr.  Bell,  and  the  idea  ad- 
vanced that  the  state  had  the  right  to  take  the  railroads  into  its 
control,  and  either  run  them  itself  or  put  them  into  the  hands 
of  a trustee,  or  manage  them  in  some  other  way,  like  the  postal 
service,  or  any  other  public  matter.  The  state  simply  entrusts 
the  service  to  certain  bauds  under  an  act  of  incorporation,  or  in 
some  other  form,  with  the  right  always  to  resume  it  at  any  mo- 
ment. Generally  speaking,  when  we  pass  acts  of  incorporation, 
we  say,  “This  act  is  subject  to  be  amended,  modified,  or  re- 
pealed whenever  the  public  good  may  require  it.”  As  I said 
in  my  talk  about  the  ninety-nine  years  lease,  everybody  under- 
stands, and  all  legislation  recognizes  the  fact,  that  so  long  as 
the  public  good  does  not  require  any  extraordinary  thing  of 
that  kind  to  be  done,  the  state  has  discretion  enough  not  to 
exercise  the  right ; — just  so  in  the  matter  of  leasing  railroads  : 
the  control  of  the  state  is  always  full  and  complete.  The  good 
sense  of  any  one  will  say  to  him  that  the  state  ought  not  to  in- 
terfere when  parties  doing  the  duty  or  exercising  the  right  are 


22 


doing  it  in  accord  with  the  public  good,  and  so  as  to  meet  the 
demands  of  the  state. 

Now  this  Atherton  bill,  in  my  judgment,  proposes  an  extra- 
ordinary proceeding.  I do  not  think,  and  I do  not  believe 
you  will  think,  gentlemen  of  the  house,  that  the  public  good  re- 
quires at  the  present  time  the  violent  taking  of  the  property  or 
right  in  this  lease  of  the  Boston  & Lowell  corporation.  Every  ex- 
pression, from  whatever  source  I have  heard  it,  has  been  that  the 
train  service,  the  public  service  all  along  these  northern  lines, 
has  been  perfect.  The  people  say,  we  want  no  better.  They 
say  to  the  Boston  & Lowell,  “You  have  done  everything  for  us 
that  we  could  ask  ; we  are  delighted  with  the  manner  in  which 
you  have  served  us,  and  we  wish  a continuance  of  the  service 
as  it  has  been.”  I think  it  will  commend  itself  to  your  good 
sense  that  the  public  good  does  not  require  the  exercise  of  so 
extraordinary  a power  as  that  of  taking  the  lease  from  the 
hands  of  the  Boston  & Lowell  and  passing  it  into  the  hands  of 
another  corporation,  simply  for  the  purpose  of  enriching  or 
aggrandizing  that  corporation. 

The  leasing  of  a railroad  does  not  change  its  character  or  its 
duties ; it  stands  just  as  it  did  before ; the  same  liabilities 
which  the  law  imposed  upon  it  remain  ; and  whoever  takes  it 
must  fulfil  its  duties,  public  and  private. 

All  the  obligations  of  the  common  law  or  statute  law  of  any 
and  every  kind  which  were  upon  the  lessor  as  a common  carrier, 
fall  upon  the  lessee,  and  the  lessee  must  fulfil  these  duties,  or 
violate  its  obligation  and  forfeit  its  rights  to  hold  and  manage 
the  property.  And  the  lessor  or  the  state  can  resume  it  on 
that  ground  at  any  moment. 

Again  : When  a corporation  leases  itself  to  another  corporation, 
as  the  Northern  Railroad  has  to  the  Boston  & Lowell,  there  are 
numerous  authorities  to  the  effect  that  the  lessor  corporation, 
in  any  case  of  accident  through  negligence,  or  in  any  case  of 
non-fulfilment  of  obligation  assumed  by  the  lessee,  is  liable 
and  may  be  sued.  There  is  a covenant  in  the  lease  in  ques- 
tion which  looks  to  just  the  state  of  things  I have  now  de- 
scribed. That  is,  there  is  a covenant  on  the  part  of  the  lessee 
that  in  case  of  any  accident,  in  case  of  any  negligence,  in  case 
of  default  bv  the  lessee  corporation,  they  will  protect  the 


28 


lessor  corporation  from  all  damages  and  suits  in  regard  to  it. 
That  covenant  was  made,  not  for  the  purposes  of  the  argument 
that  I am  making,  but  because  shrewd  lawyers,  in  drawing  up 
that  lease,  recognized  the  law  as  I have  stated  it, — that  the  lo- 
cal corporation  might  be  sued  in  case  of  default  or  negligence, 
because  it  is  incumbent  on  them  by  virtue  of  their  act  of  incor- 
poration, accepted  by  them  from  the  state,  to  see  that  the  rail- 
road was  run  according  to  law ; that  is,  that  no  negligence 
should  ever  cause  injury  to  passengers,  no  default  should  be 
made  in  their  duties  as  common  carriers.  The  state  placed  that 
burden  upon  them,  and  that  burden  remains  upon  them.  There 
are  numerous  cases  to  the  effect  that  such  is  the  law  unless 
there  is  special  provision  in  the  legislation  relieving  them  of  this 
burden  ; and  nothing  of  that  kind  is  to  be  found  in  this  lease  or 
in  any  action  on  the  part  of  the  state.  If  the  party  who  takes 
the  railroad  takes  it  by  virtue  of  a mortgage,  or  takes  it  by 
virtue  of  a receivership  or  by  operation  of  law,  the  matter 
stands  differently.  I am  speaking  about  the  matter  as  between 
the  lessor  and  lessee. 

The  transfer,  or  attempt  by  the  railroads  to  transfer,  cases  to 
the  United  States  court  in  this  jurisdiction  has  not  been  frequent, 
so  far  as  my  observation  extends.  I do  not  think  it  would  be  of 
advantage  to  them  to  take  such  a course.  For  many  years  a foreign 
corporation  has  run  the  Sullivan  County  Railroad,  and  we  have 
found  no  trouble  in  that  or  any  other  direction,  and  I apprehend 
none.  My  friend  from  Tilton  has  given  you  a pathetic  account  of 
the  fortunes  of  his  father,  and  asks  that  in  his  old  age  he  may 
through  your  action  derive  some  benefit  from  his  stock  in  the 
B.  C.  & M.  Many  men  have  lost  all  they  put  in.  They  never  expect 
to  get  it  back,  and  they  never  will.  We  have  suffered  in  man}? 
parts  of  the  state  in  this  manner.  We  are  sorry ; we  would  have 
liked  to  have  it  otherwise  ; but  is  that  any  proper  ground  on 
which  the  legislature  of  New  Hampshire  shall  determine  a great 
question  of  state  interest?  Why,  I should  prefer  to  vote  to 
those  men  who  suffered  in  that  way  a free  gift  out  of  the  treasury 
of  the  state,  rather  than  violate  a principle  which  I believe  lies 
at  the  foundation  of  our  prosperity. 

A word  as  to  the  Canadian  Pacific.  I understood  Gen. 
Marston  to  say  that  the  Canadian  Pacific  was  a terrible  institu- 


24 


tion,  and  that  in  some  way  or  other  it  was  going  to  work  a ter- 
rible injustice  and  harm  to  New  Hampshire.  When  gentlemen 
come  before  you  with  that  sort  of  an  argument,  you  must  think 
that  they  either  regard  you  as  not  quite  up  to  the  mark,  or  else 
they  have  uttered  in  the  hurry  of  debate  something  they  did 
not  quite  mean  to  say,  as  men  often  do  when  on  their  feet  talk- 
ing extemporaneously. 

I have  always  labored  under  the  idea  that  it  was  a benefit  to 
the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  or  to  any  other  state,  to  have  com- 
munication with  the  rest  of  the  world.  I have  thought  that 
commerce  with  the  Canadian  territory,  commerce  with  England, 
commerce  with  China,  commerce  with  Mexico  and  the  South 
American  states,  was  something  to  be  hoped  for  and  encouraged. 
Am  I mistaken?  Am  I talking  to  a legislature  in  the  midst  of 
the  nineteenth  century?  or  have  I gone  back  a hundred  years, 
when  communities  had  not  our  present  facilities  and  lived  al- 
most entirely  by  themselves?  You  have  now,  by  virtue  of  rail- 
roads and  ship  communication,  your  fruits  from  the  South  in 
their  season.  You  have  from  over  the  water,  from  the  Med- 
iterranean, oranges  and  the  various  fruits  there  growing ; 
you  have  your  tea  from  China,  and  your  silks  from  some  other 
parts  of  the  world.  In  this  age  we  live  in  a different  wa\’  from 
what  they  did  one  hundred  years  ago.  Do  you  wish  to  deprive 
yourselves  of  these  advantages?  Do  you  wish  to  shut  out  com- 
munication by  means  of  the  Canadian  Pacific  Railroad,  and  by 
all  other  means  of  communication  with  the  outside  world?  That 
is  the  logic  of  the  gentleman’s  argument.  But  he  knew  the  ab- 
surdity of  that  position,  and  so  at  last  he  said,  “Why,  I am 
willing  they  should  bring  here  whatsoever  they  have  a mind  to 
bring,  but  I do  not  want  them  to  undertake  to  get  in  here  and 
control  our  affairs  ; and  I do  not  want  the  Boston  & Maine 
Railroad,  for  the  consideration  of  $3,000,000  or  any  other  sum, 
to  turn  their  system  of  railroads  over  to  the  Canadian  Pacific.” 

Is  there  any  danger  of  it?  Is  there  not  a provision  in  the 
Hazen  bill  that  these  roads  shall  not  be  leased  by  the  Canadian 
Pacific?  Haven’t  we  made  that  in  the  Hazen  bill  as  strong  as 
possible  ? and  have  n’t  they  got  to  come  to  the  legislature  of 
New  Hampshire  in  order  to  get  this  provision  reversed  ? Besides, 
I have  not  so  much  fear  of  foreign  corporations  as  the  gentle- 


25 


man  seems  to  have.  I expectin  a hundred  years  from  this  time, 
when  the  Western  country  shall  have  been  overflowed,  when  im- 
migration has  filled  up  those  great  states  to  repletion,  that  it 
will  drift  out  over  the  Canadian  lands,  and  perhaps  by  and  by, 
through  that  means  and  the  inter-communication  fostered  by 
these  very  railroads,  the  territory  of  the  United  States  of  Amer- 
ica will  be  extended  to  the  northern  waters.  I believe  that  in- 
stead of  being  captured  by  the  Canadian  Pacific  or  by  Canada, 
they  are  much  more  likely  to  be  taken  by  us,  and  to  come  to  us 
and  form  a part  of  our  system.  There  is  no  danger  from  that 
source  ; and  if  there  were  danger,  we  have  given  you  the  best 
possible  guard  against  it.  What  more  can  you  ask  at  our 
hands  in  the  Hazen  bill?  Mr.  Bell  told  you,  very  pertinently, 
that  he  was  in  favor  of  the  Hazen  bill  because  the  Boston 
& Maine,  united  with  these  upper  roads,  would  make  a strong 
resisting  force  against  any  attempt  at  invasion.  It  would  be  a 
force  that  would  command  the  respect  of  the  Canadian  Pacific, 
or  any  other  road  with  which  it  should  come  in  contact.  Is  not 
that  so?  Is  not  that  the  true  argument?  If  you  wish  to  pro- 
vide for  resistance,  can  you  not  get  it  from  the  Boston  & Maine 
better  than  to  leave  these  upper  roads  alone,  or  even  better  than 
to  let  the  Concord  road  unite  with  them?  But,  gentlemen,  I am 
talking  too  long  in  regard  to  these  matters. 

I wish  to  say  a word  about  the  matter  of  competition.  It  has 
been  displayed  and  commended  to  us  as  a means  of  preserv- 
ing all  the  rights  of  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  in  the  best 
possible  manner.  Let  us  look  at  that  for  a moment.  I desire 
to  read  to  you  from  Charles  Francis  Adams  on  the  subject  of 
railroads,  an  eminent  authority,  and  one  whose  opinions  are 
entitled  to  the  greatest  weight.  On  the  80th  page  of  “The 
Railroad  Problem,”  he  says, — 

During  the  last  ten  years  there  has  been  so  much  vague  discussion  of 
what  is  commonly  known  as  the  railroad  problem,  that  many  people,  and 
those  by  no  means  the  least  sensible,  have  begun  gravely  to  doubt  whether 
after  all  it  is  not  a mere  cant  phrase,  and  whether  any  such  problem  does 
indeed  exist.  Certainly  the  discussion  has  not  been  remarkable  for  in- 
telligence, and  the  currency  question  itself  has  hardly  been  more  com- 
pletely befogged  in  clouds  of  indifferent  declamation,  poor  philosophy, 
and  worse  logic.  No  fallacy  has  been  too  thin  to  pass  current  in  it,  and 
the  absolute  power  which  certain  words  and  phrases  have  held  over  the 


26 


public  mind  has  throughout  seemed  to  set  both  argument  and  patience  at 
defiance. 

I ask  you,  gentlemen,  to  apply  these  remarks  of  Charles 
Francis  Adams  to  the  constant  cry  of  44  monopoly,”  44  stock- 
jobbers,’’ 44  invaders,”  44  robbers,”  that  we  have  so  often  heard 
here — and  for  what  purpose?  Is  it  not  to  excite  your  preju- 
dices? Is  that  calm,  dispassionate  reasoning?  or,  is  it  an  en- 
deavor to  warp  your  minds  and  excite  your  prejudices  by  such 
words  and  phrases  as  Charles  Francis  Adams  has  here  de- 
scribed? Then,  on  page  117,  he  says,  in  regard  to  this  matter 
of  competition, — 

To  one  now  looking  back  and  reviewing  the  whole  course  of  events, 
cause  and  effect  become  apparent.  Things  could  not  have  taken  any 
course  other  than  that  which  they  did  take : the  logic  has  been  inexora- 
ble. The  whole  theory  under  which  the  railroad  system  was  left  to  de- 
velop itself  was  founded  on  a theoretical  error ; and  it  was  none  the  less 
an  error  because,  even  if  it  had  been  recognized  as  such,  it  could  not 
have  been  remedied.  That  error  lay  in  the  supposition,  then  universally 
accepted  as  an  axiom,  that  in  all  matters  of  trade,  competition,  if  allowed 
perfectly  free  play,  could  be  relied  upon  to  protect  the  community  from 
abuses.  The  efficacy  of  railroad  competition,  expressing  itself  in  the 
form  of  general  laws  authorizing  the  freest  possible  railroad  construction 
everywhere  and  by  any  one,  at  an  early  day  became  almost  a cardinal 
principle  of  American  faith. 

A gentleman  from  Nashua  the  other  day  advocated  competi- 
tion. Gentlemen  from  Manchester  have  advocated  it ; they 
have  said,  in  substance,  that  they  have  two  railroads,  and  they 
wish  to  preserve  them  and  enjoy  the  blessings  of  competition. 
Well,  they  had  competition  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  state  be- 
tween the  Eastern  Railroad  and  the  Boston  & Maine,  and  in  the 
end  they  did  not  find  it  very  useful.  It  helped  create  their 
enormous  debts,  helped  ruin  the  Eastern  Railroad,  and  was  the 
thing  that  has  taken  out  of  the  pockets  of  the  people  large  sums 
of  money  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  state.  And  now,  gentle- 
men, it  has  resulted  in  combination,  which  is  always  the  case. 

Did  it  ever  occur  to  you  that  we,  here  in  New  Hampshire, 
cannot  every  man  of  us  have  two  railroads  run  to  his  door? 
You,  up  in  the  northern  part  of  the  state,  in  every  town,  are 


27 


you  going  to  have  two  railroads,  so  that  you  can  have  competi- 
tion at  every  point?  That  is  a state  of  things  which  you  can 
see  would  be  absurd  to  expect.  I am  willing  the  city  of  Nashua 
should  have  equal  privileges  as  to  competition  with  the  rest  of 
us,  and  the  city  of  Manchester  likewise.  But,  gentlemen  from 
Coos,  Grafton,  Strafford,  and  Rockingham,  or  any  other  part 
of  the  state,  I do  not  desire,  and  I think  you  will  not  desire, 
that  the  city  of  Nashua  should  have  competition  there  such  as 
would  lower  the  rates,  and  in  the  war  of  railroads  get  them 
down  below  the  normal  point,  because, — mark  me,  gentlemen, — 
what  the  city  of  Nashua  or  the  city  of  Manchester  gains  in  that 
regard  you  will  have  to  make  up. 

This  matter  of  competition  is  an  insidious  power,  and  it  is 
followed  by  combination  which  raises  rates,  or  it  is  followed  by 
discriminations  and  secret  rates  and  everything  of  that  sort, 
which  have  been  injurious  to  the  people  and  ruinous  to  the 
railroads  of  this  country. 

The  gentleman  from  Nashua  told  you  in  his  speech  the  other 
day  that  there  were  three  methods  in  railroading.  One  was 
governmental  control ; another,  letting  them  control  themselves, 
or  do  what  they  pleased  ; and  another  was  treating  them  as 
trustees,  the  state  being  the  supervisory  trustee, — and  that  he 
favored  the  latter  method.  I am  in  accord  with  him  on  that 
subject.  What  I wish  to  see  in  New  Hampshire  is  a board  of 
railroad  commissioners  with  strength  enough  to  make  the  rail- 
roads of  New  Hampshire  serve  me  and  carry  for  me,  though 
poor  and  humble,  just  as  well  and  at  the  same  rates  as  for  the 
man  who  counts  his  millions.  I wish  them  to  understand  that 
there  must  be  equality,  and  that  everybody  must  be  served 
alike  ; that  freights  and  fares  must  be  free  from  discrimina- 
tion throughout  the  state.  This  matter  of  competition  can- 
not in  these  railroad  matters  be  sufficiently  general  to  realize 
any  good  from  it.  The  points  where  any  good  is  obtained 
are  few,  and  it  works  to  the  destruction  and  embarrassment 
of  the  rest.  You  can  have  proper  freights  and  fares  on  your 
railroads  only  by  having  governmental  control  through  your 
railroad  commissioners  in  such  way  as  I have  described. 

The  next  point  I wish  to  consider  is  the  physical  connection 
of  railroads.  I will  spend  but  a moment  on  that.  I need  only 


28 


refer  you  to  the  fact  that  the  Boston,  Concord  & Montreal  and 
the  Northern  have  been  run  by  the  Boston  & Lowell  three  or 
four  years,  and  they  are  not  physically  connected.  If  there 
has  been  any  trouble,  I have  not  heard  of  it.  I live  at 
Claremont,  on  one  line  of  that  railroad.  I think  I know  how  the 
train  service  has  been.  There  has  been  no  trouble  ; the  people 
are  satisfied.  And  I will  say  here,  lest  I forget  it,  it  is  possible 
you  may  think  there  is  something  to  this  talk  about  legislating 
the  Concord  Railroad  out  of  existence.  The  idea  is  absurd. 
The  Concord  Railroad  has  existed  and  prospered  ; their  train 
service  and  all  their  rights  have  been  protected  while  these  roads 
above  and  below  have  been  running  under  the  leases.  The  ar- 
gument as  to  physical  connection  does  not  amount  to  anything. 
Talk  about  the  upper  roads  and  the  Boston  & Lowell  road 
crushing  the  Concord  road  is  mere  talk.  They  cannot  crush 
it  any  more  than  your  farm  could  be  crushed  if  it  lay  in  the 
midst  of  10,000  acres  belonging  to  some  other  man.  The  law 
of  the  state  would  preserve  your  rights  to  the  farm  as  perfectly 
in  all  respects  as  though  you  owned  the  10,000  acres  and  not 
the  little  farm  of  forty  acres.  These  are  arguments  addressed 
to  fear  and  prejudice,  and  not  to  reason. 

Now,  as  to  the  Atherton  bill : it  has  a delusive  title.  As  it 
came  into  this  house  it  was  called  “An  act  to  secure  to  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire  the  control  of  its  railroads,” — just  as 
though  New  Hampshire  had  not  had  the  control  of  its  railroads, 
and  it  remained  for  the  gentleman  from  Nashua  to  save  them  to 
the  state  ! The  bill  went  into  committee,  and  its  friends  thought 
it  not  quite  sugar-coated  enough,  so  they  added  this,  “ to 
carry  into  effect  the  true  intent  of  the  general  railroad  legisla- 
tion of  1883.”  This  was  the  name  they  gave  it,  but  the  name 
does  not  indicate  its  character.  Everybody  knows  that  the 
Atherton  bill,  instead  of  perfecting  the  law  of  1883,  reverses 
that  legislation  ; that  it  is  a return  to  the  system  of  special  leg- 
islation which  for  forty  years  had  characterized  the  state.  The 
bill  provides  that  they  may  do  a great  many  things  ; but  if  they 
do  not  do  them,  the  only  chance  anybody  has  got  is  to  go  into 
court  and  see  what  the  court  say  about  the  intention  of  this 
act.  It  is  provided  that  it  shall  be  the  privilege  of  any  man,  if, 
after  a certain  length  of  time,  they  do  not  perform  the  things 


29 


mentioned,  to  get  them  into  court  and  have  the  court  say  what 
this  act  means.  I thought  it  would  be  a delightful  thing  for 
these  weak  roads,  or  anybody  interested  in  the  upper  country, 
to  get  John  H.  Pearson  into  court.  I think  they  would  have  a 
good  time  before  they  got  out. 

I desire  to  say  something  about  the  consolidation  of  railroads. 
Consolidation  of  railroads  is  a matter,  I believe,  in  which  we 
all  agree — our  friends  of  the  Atherton  bill,  I think,  with  a men- 
tal reservation.  I thought  in  1883  we  were  adopting  the  princi- 
ple of  consolidation.  I think  a good  many  thought  so.  Judge 
Cross,  in  some  of  the  remarks  he  made  at  that  time,  said  that 
thirt37-five  states  of  the  Union  had  adopted  this  policy.  Now  it 
is  a good  way  to  interpret  a matter  by  looking  at  what  those 
states  have  done.  I venture  to  say  that  you  cannot  find  any 
number  of  those  states  which  have  adopted  the  kind  of  consoli- 
dation which  is  recommended  to  us  here — that  is,  consolidation 
that  stops  at  state  lines.  Judge  Cross,  in  his  illustrations  in 
regard  to  the  matter,  enumerated  a great  many  railroads  that 
had  been  consolidated.  In  1883  he  said  that  the  legislature  has 
the  absolute  and  entire  control  of  all  railroads  in  the  state, 
whether  separate  or  consolidated.  How  is  it  in  the  other 
states  ? Have  they  suffered  from  consolidation  ? That  is  the  way 
he  put  the  matter  then.  You  remember  how  he  put  it  in  his  ar- 
gument before  the  committee  during  this  session  of  the  legisla- 
ture. 

Consolidation  is  right  in  principle.  I do  not  think  you  wish 
to  chop  off  our  roads  at  the  state  line.  One  gentleman — I think 
it  was  my  friend,  Mr.  Atherton — said  that  the  ultimate  outcome 
will  be  a line  of  railroad  from  upper  Coos  to  the  sea.  I think 
that  is  in  the  current  of  coming  events,  to  happen,  not  by  crush- 
ing the  Concord  Railroad,  but  by  allowing  her  to  make  such 
business  connections  or  consolidations  with  these  other  roads  as 
shall  accomplish  what  the  state  desires.  The  Boston  & Maine 
Railroad  have  not  taken  the  terminals  of  the  Boston  & Lowell 
and  leased  the  Boston  & Lowell  without  a reason  ; they  have 
not  given  the  Boston  & Lowell  what  they  have  covenanted  to 
give  on  their  stock  without  a reason  ; and  that  reason  is  found 
in  part  in  the  advantages  of  the  terminals  of  the  Boston  & 
Lowell  Railroad.  They  see,  if  some  of  the  gentlemen  on  the 


80 


floor  of  this  house  do  not,  that  this  country  is  progressing,  that 
these  terminals  are  becoming  and  will  become  very  important. 
Look  back  upon  the  history  of  the  country  during  the  past  fifty 
years : no  flight  of  fancy  has  equalled  the  reality  of  what  has 
taken  place.  The  course  and  growth  of  our  empire  have  been 
astonishing.  Within  fifty  years  the  railroad,  the  telegraph,  and 
other  inventions  which  contribute  to  the  benefit  and  the  enlarge- 
ment of  affairs,  have  changed  the  whole  course  of  business. 
These  gentlemen  of  the  Boston  & Maine  Railroad  are  alive  to 
the  condition  of  things.  They  have  seen  that  in  the  near  future 
commerce  is  going  to  make  these  terminals  of  great  conse- 
quence. Shall  we  fail  to  enjoy,  along  with  them,  the  benefits 
they  offer?  It  is  vital  to  the  interests  of  New  Hampshire  that 
she  should  have  the  lowest  freight  and  fares  ; that  she  should 
have  every  resource  possible  in  this  direction.  We  must  be 
equals  in  the  race,  or  our  state  will  be  left  out  of  the  track  of 
progress.  You  cannot  expect  to  compete  with  the  prairies  of 
the  west  in  raising  corn.  You  must  bring  your  grains  from  the 
great  north-west  down  over  these  roads.  You  must  bring  your 
merchandise  from  Boston  up  along  these  lines.  The  thing  for 
New  Hampshire  to  do  is  to  develop  her  water-power,  develop 
her  manufactories.  And  it  is  a matter  of  the  finest  calculation 
on  freights  and  fares.  It  is  a matter  vital  to  these  manufacto- 
ries whether  they  can  save  a few  mills  on  a yard  of  cotton  or  on 
a pound  of  freight,  or  not.  We  are  back  here  among  the  hills  ; 
and  if  your  manufactories  along  the  rivers  in  these  valleys  are 
going  to  compete  with  those  near  tide  water  and  the  great  mar- 
kets, you  must  have  the  lowest  freights  and  fares.  Men  come 
here  and  indulge  in  fiery  harangues  against  your  manufactories 
and  your  railroads.  Why  do  you  not  tear  up  your  railroads 
and  tear  down  your  mills/ and  blast  them  and  the  whole  land 
with  fire,  abate  them  as  nuisances?  That  is  the  logic  of  some 
speeches  we  have  heard  here.  I am  exasperated,  as  a citi- 
zen of  New  Hampshire,  when  I hear  that  kind  of  talk.  If 
you  love  your  native  state  you  will  not  allow  that  sort  of  spirit 
to  control.  I am  in  favor  of  controlling  these  things.  I agree 
with  the  gentleman  from  Nashua,  that  railroads  should  be  con- 
trolled. Make  them  your  business  servants;  control  your 
Amoskeag  corporation,  and  make  it  do  what  it  ought  to  do. 


81 


But  hold  back  the  spirit  of  destruction ; avoid  social  anarchy. 
Let  us  have  prosperity  rather  than  desolation.  [Applause.]  I 
am  not  talking  for  any  railroad  : I am  not  their  attorney  : I 
never  was  in  mv  life.  I do  not  come  here  under  any  influence 
of  that  kind.  I am  talking  for  the  interests  of  New  Hampshire 
as  I understand  them.  I would  gladly  have  avoided  this  ques- 
tion. But  I am  in  it ; I have  got  to  act  upon  it  as  one  of  you  ; 
and  so  far  as  I am  concerned  you  shall  know  what  I think. 

To  relieve  the  situation,  I will  read  what  our  friend  Sulloway 
says  in  a part  of  his  argument  in  1883  on  this  subject  of  con- 
solidation. I do  not  mean  any  disrespect  to  my  friend  from 
Manchester,  who  has  gone  away,  but  I presume  he  will  know 
what  I have  said.  He  said  the  other  night  he  had  not  read  my 
speech.  I would  advise  the  gentleman,  if  he  intends  to  answer 
my  speech  in  any  particular,  to  read  it  before  he  undertakes 
to  answer  it,  and  he  will  get  nearer  the  truth,  and  make  a better 
argument.  [Applause.] 

Now,  gentlemen,  this  brings  me  to  another  particular  in  which  this 
Colby  bill  has  been  attacked,  and  that  is  the  leasing  of  railroads ; and 
gentlemen  come  in  here  as  if  it  were  something  new.  They  ,come  in 
here  and  stand  up  and  inflate  their  lungs,  and  they  talk  about  consolida- 
tion. Gentlemen,  they  are  aware  that  there  is  a prejudice  in  New  Hamp- 
shire against  what  is  called  consolidation.  The  same  class  of  people  are 
afraid  of  consolidation  that  are  afraid  of  ghosts ; it  is  they  who  have 
never  seen  ghosts  that  are  afraid  of  them ; they  are  not  familiar  with 
ghosts ; they  never  happened  to  meet  a ghost ; they  are  entirely  unac- 
quainted with  ghosts  ; and  consequently  they  are  afraid  of  a ghost.  Now 
whenever  you  find  a man  who  is  scared  at  consolidation,  or  what  is  here 
called  consolidation,  he  is  a man  who  knows  nothing  of  the  practical 
working  operations  and  savings  to  the  people  by  the  union  of  roads. 

There  have  been  references  made  during  the  debate  to  the 
reports  of  the  railroad  commissioners  of  New  Hampshire.  I 
desire  to  read  a little.  The  Boston  & Maine  have  been  pictured 
to  you  as  a horrible  creature,  and  I was  struck  after  all  with 
the  fact  that  during  the  forty  years  that  the  Boston  & Maine 
have  operated  their  roads  so  little  could  be  said  against  their  man- 
agement. But  they  say  they  are  terrible  people,  and  that  they 
will  rob  you  of  your  liberty.  I want  to  read  to  you  what  the 
railroad  commissioners  in  1886  said  about  this  matter.  And 


32 


this  is  signed  by  the  gentleman  from  Nashua  with  the  other 
railroad  commissioners.  He  says, — 

The  decisions  of  this  board  have  principally  been  decisions  of  equity. 
Not  one  has  met  with  contention  on  the  part  of  the  public  or  of  the  rail- 
roads. The  greater  number  of  decisions  has  been  adverse  to  the  rail- 
roads, and  the  decisions  have  been  accepted  in  good  faith.  While  the 
time  has  not  yet  arrived  for  the  principle  of  equity  to  dominate  in  all 
human  affairs,  it  is  making  rapid  advance.  A railroad  commission  is  a 
court  of  equity.  It  has  few  formulas.  It  is  bound  by  no  line  of  prece- 
dents. It  is  hedged  with  no  intricacies.  It  has  no  costly  machinery. 
It  is  subject  to  none  of  the  laws  of  delay.  It  is  a plain,  open,  and  inex- 
pensive court  of  arbitration  between  railroads  and  their  patrons.  Every 
complaint,  however  trifling,  has  been  heard  and  decided  upon  the  law 
and  the  equities,  wherever  the  board  has  had  jurisdiction.  Not  all  have 
called  for  hearings,  because  their  mere  calling  attention  to  a complaint 
has  often  been  sufficient  to  secure  an  immediate  remedy.  This  explains 
the  less  number  of  public  hearings  than  would  otherwise  be  the  case.  It 
is  a matter  for  congratulation  that  complaints  have  not  been  more  fre- 
quent. 

Now  if  the  Boston  & Maine  is  a monster  that  defies  your  law, 
that  undertakes  to  trample  upon  your  rights,  that  would  grind 
to  powder  the  people  along  its  line,  how  is  it  possible  that  this 
board  of  railroad  commissioners,  of  which  my  friend  from 
Nashua  was  a member,  could  write  such  a report?  I honor 
him  for  the  execution  of  his  trust.  I presume  he  stated  the 
exact  truth  upon  his  conscience.  He  says  that  these  railroads, 
on  the  very  intimation  that  something  was  needed  to  be  done, 
have  done  it,  and  the  decision,  made  in  equity  and  not  in  law, 
has  been  accepted  with  the  utmost  good  faith.  How  does  that 
comport  with  the  talk  about  stock-jobbers,  robbers,  and  in- 
vaders? Are  these  enterprising  railroad  managers  what  some 
people  would  represent  them  to  be,  or  are  they  executing  a great 
trust  and  doing  their  duty  to  the  state  and  its  citizens?  I will 
leave  it  for  you  to  judge.  Why,  you  could  hardly  expect  so 
enormous  a property  to  go  along  from  year  to  year  without 
some  jostling,  without  some  complaint.  Take  into  considera- 
tion that  fact,  and  also  take  into  consideration  the  report  of 
your  railroad  commissioners,  not  made  at  a time  when  the 
blood  might  be  a little  heated,  but  in  the  coolness  of  the  hour 


33 


when  they  were  writing  their  report  under  their  oath,  honestly 
trying  to  tell  the  truth,  and  what  shall  the  verdict  be? 

A word  as  to  the  matter  of  inter-state  commerce.  The  senate 
committee,  headed  by  Senator  Cullom,  made  an  examination,  as 
the  gentleman  from  Exeter  told  you.  The  matter  was  debated 
in  congress  for  a long  while,  and  it  culminated  in  this  commis- 
sion. They  made  a wide  inquiry,  and  they  have  made  a law 
which  he  thinks  is  wise  and  just.  I thank  the  gentleman  for 
the  admission  that  it  is  a wise  and  just  law.  Its  purpose  is  in 
the  direct  line  of  what  I have  been  talking  to  you  ; that  is,  of 
the  legislative  control  of  the  railroads.  The  inter-state  com- 
merce commission  is  a system  like  your  New  Hampshire  board 
of  railroad  commissioners,  and  under  their  hand  is  opening 
up — perhaps  in  a somewhat  crude  way  at  first — a great  advance 
in  railroad  legislation  in  the  United  States.  I want  to  read  a 
little  to  you  from  Senator  Cullom’s  report,  one  of  the  ablest 
reports  that  I ever  had  the  pleasure  of  perusing,  written  thor- 
oughly in  the  interest  of  the  people,  and  designed  to  bring  them 
the  rights  and  benefits  they  ought  to  enjoy  under  their  railroad 
system.  I wish  to  broaden  you  out,  as  Gen.  Marston  says.  I 
like  to  be  broadened  out  myself ; get  a little  wider  view  if  I can. 
This  committee  say, — 

The  present  century  has  witnessed  the  introduction  of  new  forces  in 
every  department  of  civilized  life,  and  none  have  brought  about  more 
marvellous  changes  than  has  the  railroad  as  an  aid  to  and  an  instrument- 
ality of  commerce.  The  commercial,  social,  and  political  relations  of  the 
nations  have  been  revolutionized  almost  within  the  last  fifty  years  by  the 
development  of  improved  means  of  communication  and  transportation. 
Previous  to  that  period  each  nation  lived  almost  wholly  within  itself. 
There  was  little  intercommunication,  and  exchanges  of  products  were 
limited  to  an  extent  that  can  to-day  scarcely  be  realized.  The  commerce 
of  the  world  was  for  centuries  conducted  almost  exclusively  upon  the  sea, 
and  its  proportions  were  insignificant  in  comparison  with  the  foreign 
trade  of  any  leading  nation  to-day.  By  the  construction  of  turnpikes 
and  canals  and  the  development  of  river  navigation,  international  trade 
gradually  began  to  grow  up ; but  barriers  existed  at  every  frontier ; the 
transmission  of  intelligence  was  uncertain  and  expensive  ; through  routes 
were  almost  unknown ; long  distance  transportation  was  impossible,  ex- 
cept by  water,  and  there  was  actually  but  little  communication  or  trading 


3 


34 


between  different  nations  or  even  between  distant  parts  of  the  same 
country.  * * * 

But  still  more  marvellous  have  been  the  changes  brought  about  in  the 
commercial,  political,  and  social  relations  of  nations,  communities,  and 
individuals  by  the  improved  facilities  for  transportation  .and  intercourse 
afforded  by  the  railroad,  all  within  the  present  century,  and  mainly  within 
the  last  thirty-five  years.  Indeed,  the  changes  which  have  been  alluded 
to  have  consolidated  independent  communities  and  sovereign  states  into 
nations,  and  their  tendency  has  been  in  the  direction  of  concentration  and 
consolidation  in  political  organization  as  well  as  in  every  form  of  commer- 
cial enterprise,  industry,  and  production.  * * * 

Governor  Horatio  Seymour  says,  — “ The  chief  element  in  the  prosperity 
of  every  state  or  nation  is  the  economy  of  transportation  of  persons  and 
property.  It  is  the  marked  fact  in  the  difference  between  civilization  and 
barbarism.”  In  the  settlement  of  this  country  the  “star  of  empire” 
closely  followed  in  its  continuous  westward  march  the  lines  of  the  great 
internal  water-courses,  the  first  available  means  of  inter-communication. 
The  advancing  tide  of  civilization  swept  by  and  around  vast  regions  re- 
mote from  the  great  rivers,  regions  in  which  prosperous  states  have  since 
grown  up ; and  it  may  be  said  of  large  portions  of  our  imperial  Western 
domain,  which  owa  their  development  to  the  building  of  railroads,  that 
the  invention  of  the  locomotive  by  George  Stephenson  in  1830  marked 
the  beginning  of  “ the  difference  between  civilization  and  barbarism.” 
The  railroad,  as  an  improved  means  of  communication  and  transportation, 
has  produced  indescribable  changes  in  all  the  manifold  transactions  of 
every-day  life  which  go  to  make  up  what  is  called  commerce. 

I have  read  this  that  you  may  see  at  a glance  the  importance 
of  our  vast  railroad  system,  that  you  ma}7  see  in  your  mind’s 
eye  the  bands  which  help  bind  us  together  and  make  us  one 
country.  I fear  we  should  have  fallen  asunder  in  the  time  of 
the  great  civil  war  had  it  not  been  for  the  consolidating  force  of 
these  lines  of  railway.  Great  corporations  are  a necessity  of 
the  times.  No  man  or  mere  association  of  men  can  accomplish 
the  enormous  tasks  which  the  civilization  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury demands.  The  enormous  growth  and  glory  of  the  great 
West  is  largely  due  to  the  railways  of  the  country.  You  cannot 
get  along  without  them  ; you  cannot  do  what  is  required  to  be 
done  at  this  age  of  the  world  without  these  great  corporations. 
Therefore  I am  not  in  favor  of  hostility  towards  them.  I am 
not  in  favor  of  tearing  up  their  rails,  any  more  than  I am  in 
favor  of  tearing  down  your  manufactories,  or  stopping  your  mill 


wheels,  or  putting  out  the  fires  of  your  flaming  forges.  I am  in 
favor  of  giving  them  every  needed  opportunity  for  progress. 
At  the  same  time,  I am  in  favor  of  inaugurating  such  legislation 
as  shall  control  them.  The  interstate  commerce  legislation 
marks  an  era  in  the  path  of  progress.  But  do  the  interstate 
commerce  committee  anywhere  in  their  report  recommend  such 
legislation  as  has  been  urged  by  our  friends  of  the  Atherton 
bill?  Do  they  suggest  state  systems,  or  demarcation  at  state 
boundaries?  No  such  scheme  has  been  suggested  except  in  the 
legislature  of  New  Hampshire,  so  far  as  my  information  and 
knowledge  extend. 

It  is  the  easier  and  better  way  to  leave  railroads  to  make 
their  business  connections  as  business  interests  may  determine, 
but  at  the  same  time  to  make  them  observe  their  duties  to  the 
state  and  to  the  public.  That  is  the  true  path  upon  which  we 
ought  to  travel. 

There  is  one  thing  you  have  to  learn,  if  you  have  not  already 
learned  it,  and  that  is,  it  is  barren  of  good  results  to  vote 
against  a natural  law  or  the  inevitable  tendency  of  events. 
You  throw  away  your  efforts.  Keep  your  efforts  in  the  right 
direction,  and  on  the  line  of  useful  control. 

This  brings  me  to  another  consideration.  From  the  begin- 
ning some  gentlemen  have  endeavored  to  make  this  a political 
question,  have  endeavored  to  make  you  believe  that  the  Repub- 
lican party  was  going  to  suffer.  Gentlemen,  you  stand  in  a 
critical  position.  The  legislation  you  adopt  will  determine  the 
future  business  interests  of  the  state.  And  no  man  should  at- 
tempt to  put  this  thing  into  politics  ; we  ought  not  to  listen  to 
such  considerations.  My  friend  from  Exeter  has  given  you  a 
note  of  warning.  Settle  this  question  here  and  now  on  business 
principles.  If  you  are  a Democrat  say  to  your  fellow-Democrats, 
and  if  you  are  a Republican  say  to  your  fellow-Republicans,  that 
no  question  of  politics,  either  Democratic  or  Republican,  shall 
enter  into  the  consideration  of  these  matters.  We  will  deter- 
mine now  and  forever  that  the  railroads  of  the  state  shall  be 
business  institutions,  and  so  remain.  [Applause.] 

Again,  about  those  bonds  that  have  been  flaunted  in  your 
faces.  I do  not  like  to  see  it.  I do  not  know  how  it  may  seem 
to  you.  I do  not  like  it  from  whatever  source  it  may  come. 


36 


Let  do  man  stand  up  here  to  lead  any  man  away  from  allegiance 
to  his  state,  and  flourish  over  his  head  a bond.  That  is  never 
done  by  men  who  are  confident  in  their  principles,  who  are  con- 
fident of  the  truth  of  what  they  advocate,  who  believe  under 
God  that  they  are  fighting  for  the  right.  When  men  go  about 
promising  representatives  that  they  will  build  a road  here  and  a 
road  there,  and  by  such  bids  seek  their  votes,  it  is  an  acknowl- 
edgment in  the  plainest  language  that  they  have  no  principle  to 
stand  upon,  and  are  obliged  to  adopt  subterfuge.  [Applause.] 

I will  read  again  from  the  report  of  the  committee  on  inter- 
state commerce  : 

Commerce,  in  the  meaning  of  the  constitution,  includes  the  transporta- 
tion of  persons  and  property  from  place  to  place  by  railroad.  Com- 
merce among  the  states  includes  the  transportation  of  persons  and  prop- 
erty from  a place  in  one  state  to  a place  in  another  state.  Interstate 
commerce  is  all  commerce  that  concerns  more  states  than  one,  and  em- 
braces all  transportation  which  begins  in  one  state  and  ends  in  or  passes 
through  another  state.  The  power  to  regulate  such  commerce  is  vested 
exclusively  in  congress,  without  any  limitations  as  to  the  measures  to  be 
adopted  or  the  means  to  be  employed  in  its  discretion  for  the  public  wel- 
fare. The  states  being  without  power  to  regulate  inter-state  transpor- 
tation, the  people  must  look  to  congress  alone  for  whatever  regulation 
may  be  necessary  as  to  inter-state  commerce. 

Four  fifths  of  the  commerce — and  if  you  think  of  it  a moment 
you  will  perceive  that  is  the  truth — four  fifths  of  the  commerce 
that  comes  to  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  is  interstate  com- 
merce, and  subject  to  congressional  control,  is  subject  to  the 
regulations  of  the  United  States.  In  the  control  of  our  rail- 
roads, therefore,  you  will  see  that  we  have  not  only  got  the 
force  of  the  state  law  and  the  state  commission,  but  all  the 
force  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  inter- 
state commission.  Do  we  need  to  fear  the  result?  Do  we  need 
to  be  trembling  as  to  what  legislation  we  shall  adopt  under 
these  circumstances  for  fear  of  Monopoly?  Is  not  all  the  force 
of  the  state  government  and  of  the  United  States  sufficient  for 
the  occasion?  If  not,  then  is  government  a sham  and  a failure. 
I think  that  no  one  looking  this  question  over  will  have  any 
occasion  to  fear  as  to  the  ultimate  result.  No  monopoly  is 
going  to  overpower  or  control  you.  You  will  have  the  whole 


37 


power  of  the  government,  of  the  state,  and  of  the  United  States, 
with  its  various  machinery,  to  defend  and  establish  your  rights. 
Hear  what  Mr.  Sullowav  said  in  1883  on  this  subject: 

Somebody  says  these  roads  are  going  to  be  terribly  powerful  when 
they  are  united  ; they  are  going  to  be  overwhelming,  and  the  legislature 
can’t  handle  them.  Is  there  anybody  here  who  is  so  white-livered  as  that? 
Is  there  anybody  here  who  believes  that  these  railroads  united  would  n’t 
be  weaker  in  a contest  with  the  people  than  to-day?  To-day,  supposing 
half  a dozen  men  on  the  line  of  the  Concord  road  are  at  war  with  it,  and 
they  should  undertake  to  come  here  and  get  redress,  what  do  you  gentle- 
men, living  in  other  sections  of  the  state,  care  about  that,  or  if  it  was  on 
any  other  road  ? But  if  it  was  all  one  road  and  a gentlemen  gets  cross 
with  the  railroad  up  at  Lancaster,  it  is  the  same  road  that  another  man 
gets  cross  with  at  Wolfeborough,  or  over  in  Keene,  or  up  at  Franklin,  or 
down  in  Nashua,  and  if  they  were  all  joined  in  one  institution,  one  cor- 
poration, they  would  be  weaker  with  the  people  than  to-day.  But  they 
would  be  stronger  in  another  way,  they  would  be  stronger  when  they 
wanted  to  make  business  contracts  with  the  Boston  & Lowell  Railroad. 
If  they  control  the  entire  freight  and  passenger  traffic  of  northern  and  cen- 
tral New  Hampshire,  they  would  be  in  a position  to  make  some  demands 
of  the  Lowell  road  that  they  are  not  in  the  position  to  make  to-day,  cut 
up  as  they  are  into  sections  and  fragments.  They  would  in  that  case  be 
a tower  of  strength. 

Let  me  further  quote  to  y7ou  from  a speech  of  the  gentleman 
from  Nashua,  made  in  1883  before  the  railroad  committee  : 

Thus  stands  to-day  the  great  question  of  the  state  control  of  railroads. 
The  testimony  proves,  what  Gov.  Cullom  claims,  that  there  has  been 
marked  progress  in  the  settlement  of  the  railroad  question  through  state 
boards  of  commissioners.  There  are  one  or  two  other  suggestions  that 
ought  not  to  be  neglected.  A competent  tribunal  of  this  character  will 
relieve  the  legislature  and  the  railroads  of  much  expense  and  annoyance. 
This  is  no  small  item.  Every  intelligent  gentleman  in  the  state  knows 
that  the  legislature  has  been  the  scene  of  fierce  conflict  between  the  rail- 
roads themselves,  or  the  railroads  and  the  public,  for  a dozen  years.  It  is 
time  for  this  to  cease.  If  there  be  any  economy  or  good  in  it,  those  re- 
sults are  not  apparent,  while  the  evils  are  bad  and  growing  worse  every 
year.  The  railroad  interest  should  be  taken  out  of  controversy  in  the 
legislature,  and  out  of  politics,  and  placed  upon  a purely  business  basis. 
Then,  if  these  roads  wish  to  unite,  on  the  plea  of  greater  economy  and 
efficiency,  let  them  unite,  and  you  will  have  a tribunal  that  will  compel 
them  to  realize  the  assurances  upon  which  they  united.  With  this  tribu- 


38 


nal  union  will  be  strength  and  safety.  Without  it  it  will  be  a delusion 
and  a cheat. 

In  these  two  extracts,  quoted  from  the  two  leading  debaters 
for  the  Atherton  bill,  you  have  set  forth  very  powerful  reasons 
for  one  railroad  system.  You  have,  clearty  stated,  the  power  and 
force  of  public  opinion  concentrated  from  all  parts  of  the  state 
upon  one  corporation  everywhere  exposed  to  the  jealous  and 
watchful  eye  of  the  people.  You  have,  sharply  drawn,  a picture 
of  the  fierce  and  demoralizing  conflicts  that  have  been  witnessed 
in  these  legislative  halls  for  the  last  sixteen  years.  In  the  lan- 
guage of  the  gentlemen  from  Nashua,  it  is  time  for  this  to  cease. 
Instead  of  these  false,  pernicious,  and  destructive  methods,  let 
us  recognize  the  legitimate  action  of  existing  forces. 

There  are  two  forces  at  present  at  work  in  this  country.  One 
is  corporate  power,  necessary  to  the  development  of  our  indus- 
tries, to  the  development  of  our  water-power,  and  necessary  to 
intercommunication  between  the  different  parts  of  this  vast 
country.  This  power,  perhaps,  is  sometimes  a little  too  arro- 
gant, but  on  the  whole  it  does  its  work  well.  On  the  other 
hand  is  the  power  of  the  laboring  men,  the  yeomanry  of  the 
land,  insisting  upon  their  rights.  This  power  has  been  seen  and 
felt  in  this  legislature.  These  are  alike  necessary  to  our  pros- 
perity. In  the  great  future  of  the  country  these  two  forces  will 
work  out  between  them  better  results,  better  government,  greater 
prosperity,  age  by  age,  than  could  either  alone.  [Applause.] 

You  laboring  men  who  are  enlisted  for  the  Concord  Railroad 
are  fighting  for  a monopoly  and  not  for  the  people,  a monop- 
oly that  has  darkened  your  doors  and  dogged  your  footsteps 
with  the  most  powerful  and  persistent  lobby  ever  known  within 
the  state.  Will  you  take  such  a monopoly  into  such  relations 
and  communion  as  they  shall  forever  after  control  you  and  the 
state?  They  have  failed  in  the  discharge  of  their  trust,  and 
would  now  cajole  you  into  giving  up  to  them  the  state’s  interest 
in  their  surplus. 

We  have  been  here  much  longer  than  any  legislature  was  ever 
here  before.  I shall  not  have  much  opportunity  to  talk  to  you 
again.  I have  talked  long  and  earnestly.  I feel  deeply  upon 
this  subject.  Will  you  go  from  here  to  your  constituents  and 


39 


tell  them  you  have  done  nothing,  or  that  you  have  done  the 
wrong  thing  ? Remember  the  surplus  of  the  Concord  road.  Are 
you  going  to  vote  it  away  where  you  can  never  see  it  again  ? Are 
you  going  to  erect  two  systems  of  railroads,  one  in  the  east  and 
one  in  the  west,  that  shall  fight  out  their  battles  forever  upon 
the  floor  of  this  house  ? God  forbid  that  any  such  dire  calamity 
should  come  to  the  state  of  New  Hampshire.  God  forbid  that 
at  the  end  of  this  long  contest  we  should  give  up  the  ship.  Will 
you  be  equal  to  the  emergency  that  fortune  has  cast  upon  you? 
Consider  well  my  words.  If  I have  not  told  you  the  truth,  put 
it  down  against  me.  I see  you  have  listened  to  me  with  care 
and  attention.  I think  when  we  come  to  vote  to-morrow  you 
will  find  not  a few  in  favor  of  the  Hazen  bill  so  called.  You 
will  find  this  house  of  representatives  will  make  such  an  em- 
phatic record  of  their  judgment  as  your  children  and  your  chil- 
dren’s children  will  love  to  look  back  upon.  [Applause.] 
Gentlemen,  I thank  you  for  your  patience.  I leave  the  matter 
with  you.  My  course  is  marked  out.  What  I shall  do  is  cer- 
tain. On  your  consciences  as  men,  on  your  oaths  as  legislators, 
I beg  you  to  act,  and  leave  the  consequences  where  you  must 
leave  the  result  of  every  act  of  life,  with  God.  [Applause.] 


I 


